ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Welfare Assistance Schemes

Nick Harvey: What steps his Department is taking to ensure the future of local welfare assistance schemes.

Kris Hopkins: The Government have consulted on how to fund local welfare provision in 2015-16. The Department for Communities and Local Government, with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, is analysing responses, alongside the DWP review into current provision. The Government will make a decision by the provisional local government finance settlement.

Nick Harvey: The Minister will be aware of the excellent work of discretionary schemes. In my constituency alone, 446 people in desperate situations were helped in the past year. Will he please ensure that councils facing a particularly tough financial situation will receive funds and that he will bring forward something positive for them in the local government finance settlement? Otherwise, that vital work will be lost.

Kris Hopkins: I recognise the work of local councils in helping individuals who are in very vulnerable situations. There will be an announcement on the local government finance settlement. We will take into account what the hon. Gentleman says, but I point out that there is a £94 billion welfare safety net. We have given local authorities the opportunity to use their resources in whichever way they think is appropriate.

John Healey: When the Minister makes the announcement, will he recognise that many of the most severely disabled people, who depend on the independent living fund, flourish with the independence it gives them? The fund is being wound up in March and they are very frightened that they will lose that independence. Will he review the protection available, even at this eleventh hour, and ensure that councils can continue ILF provision in full?

Kris Hopkins: As I have said, we will make an announcement in due course. It is important to reiterate that local authorities, which know the challenges facing their communities, have the opportunity to make choices and set the priorities they think are appropriate.

Alison Seabeck: The loss of the welfare assistance fund has left many families fleeing domestic abuse in the south-west—in particular, women and children—facing considerable hardship, as local authorities find it difficult to find the funds to support such relationship breakdown. Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done nationally to understand the needs at local level? Will he explain why the south-west seems to have had the greatest losses?

Kris Hopkins: If there is a particular issue with domestic violence, the hon. Lady is more than welcome to write to me. The Government recognise that dealing with domestic violence is extremely important. Additional money has been put in place to support that provision.

LED Street Lighting

Bob Russell: If he will estimate the potential energy and financial savings which could be made through local authorities installing LED street lighting.

Stephen Williams: We do not collect this information centrally. However, we know that two-thirds of councils have already switched to low-energy street lighting. That will save council tax payers’ money and have the double benefit of reducing carbon emissions.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for that very thoughtful reply, which I am sure will be listened to with great interest at County Hall in Chelmsford, where the county council has had a blackout policy from midnight. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a company near Colchester that is in the market of producing LED lights that would be of financial benefit to the taxpayer?

Stephen Williams: I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. If he wants to bring someone along to meet me I would be happy to accommodate him. However, I am advised that Essex county council is about to embark on a £1 million pilot scheme to introduce energy-saving LED streetlights in six areas of the council. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, as a result, I am sure, of his campaigning, that includes Colchester.

Philip Hollobone: The point about LED lights is that not only do they use a very small amount of electricity while generating a lot of light, they last so long and require little maintenance so that they require very few people to tend to them during the life of the light bulb. Has the Minister factored those cost-savings into his calculations?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In April, the Campaign to Protect Rural England estimated that councils spend more than
	£600 million on street lighting, accounting for 30% of their carbon emissions. Tackling the remaining street lights not using LED will reduce carbon emissions and cut the maintenance costs he mentions.

Local Authority Finance

John Pugh: What assessment he has made of the recommendations of the report by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783.

Luciana Berger: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

Clive Betts: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Reed: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

Kris Hopkins: Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to pay off the deficit left by the last Labour Government, including local government, which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. The National Audit Office report recognises that local authorities as a whole have coped well with spending reductions, with many increasing their financial reserves. The Government will continue to support local councils to transform local services, cut waste, tackle fraud and achieve better outcomes for local people.

John Pugh: I admire the Minister’s calm, but the report says that half the local authority auditors, never mind the politicians, have grave concerns. Given that, and given that Labour itself wants to take £500 million out of local authority finance, is it not time for a wholesale review of local authority finance?

Kris Hopkins: The record shows that the vast majority of people believe that local authorities offer a good service, and local authorities have achieved significant outcomes despite the reductions. Furthermore, the Government have prioritised the ability of local authorities to grow their budgets by developing local businesses, which has brought in significant money to those establishments—£11 billion has been retained in business rates alone.

Luciana Berger: The NAO found that the Minister’s Department did not understand the impact of its cuts on local authority services. By 2017, Liverpool council
	will have had its budget cut by 58%, which is 20% more than the national average, and it has reserves of only £39 million—down from £125 million—so what is his assessment of the impact of his Department’s cuts on the city of Liverpool?

Kris Hopkins: The councils facing the most demands are receiving the most money and will continue to do so. It is exceptional that a great city such as Liverpool is standing up and recognising its potential and how it can get itself out of the financial difficulties it faces. The fact that it is confident about its city deal, which will result in 15,000 jobs and 16,000 houses, as a consequence of its leadership, and the fact that it is growing its business base and drawing down significant amounts of money to support local businesses, demonstrates that the community understands the direction to go in, even if the hon. Lady does not.

Clive Betts: Given that this is a report by the independent NAO, should the Minister not be at least a little concerned about some of its findings? It states:
	“The Department has a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities and the extent to which they may be at risk of financial failure”
	and
	“does not monitor the impact of funding reductions on services in a coordinated way.”
	Is that not a damning indictment? If the Government continue with these policies, some councils will get into serious financial difficulties, and they will get there with the Government apparently unaware and seemingly uninterested.

Kris Hopkins: No local authority has not been able to secure its budget, and each year, as dramas and challenges have arisen, they have faced them and dealt with them. Furthermore, we should not forget that about £2.1 billion is lost to error or fraud and that, despite the challenges, local authorities have managed to grow their reserve base to £21.2 billion.

Steve Reed: A transformation of services is fundamental to delivering savings on the scale required, but the NAO report states that the
	“The Department has not…estimated the capacity of local authorities to carry out widespread service transformation. Nor has it estimated…the level of savings such projects could realistically make, how long this would take, or the potential impact on service users.”
	Why did the Minister not ensure that this vital work was carried out?

Kris Hopkins: The money we put forward to support transformation in councils has been welcomed right across the country—in fact, more councils have applied than we have money for—and, as for outcomes, for every £1 put in, £10 is saved. We know what we are doing, and local authorities are leading the way in driving these savings.

David Nuttall: It is now two years since the Department published its guidance, entitled “50 ways to save”, on how local government could make savings. Does the Minister have any plans to issue a second edition of this booklet, taking into account all
	the new ways in which councils, particularly Conservative councils, have come up with to save money since the first edition was issued?

Kris Hopkins: That is a pertinent question, and a new booklet has just been published that demonstrates how Conservative councils are leading the way in saving money and driving up services. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a copy.

Tony Baldry: In every one of the four years in which I was a Minister at the Department for the Environment, we were told by the Opposition that our local government spending settlement would lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. Somehow local government continued and civilisation continued. Does my hon. Friend think that if local government manages better and cuts waste, it should be able to deal with an average 2.9% reduction in spending in 2014-15 without any serious hit on services?

Kris Hopkins: My right hon. Friend is right. Businesses out there face these reductions and challenges all the time, and local authorities have risen to the challenge and are delivering good services, which are rated highly by the public—despite the challenges out there. We have faced difficult circumstances as a consequence of the previous Labour Government who drove the economy into the ground. Local government is responding to the challenge of addressing those needs.

Andy Sawford: The Minister’s shockingly complacent response today underlines the NAO’s findings that the Department has
	“a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities and the extent to which they may be at risk of financial failure…does not monitor the impact of funding reductions on services in a coordinated way”—
	and, even worse—that the Department’s approach “obscures” the “substantial differences between authorities”. Does the Minister have a clue about the real impact of his massive cuts to local government?

Kris Hopkins: I think there was a question in there. We understand that there are huge challenges facing local authorities, but it is local auditors and local councils that are making the choices about priorities at this time, addressing the needs of the vulnerable people who need to be helped. I am confident that local authorities will continue to deliver high-quality services, despite the fact that resources are currently limited.

Andy Sawford: The truth, as this damning report by the NAO shows, is that the Government do not know and do not care about the impact of the cuts on the ground. Across the country, street lights have been turned off, bus services cut, lollipop patrols stopped, children’s centres closed and care services withdrawn. Will the Minister come clean and admit that this is just the start of what it really means to take Britain back to the 1930s?

Kris Hopkins: This House knows, I know and councils out there know that the reason why we have had to make the difficult decisions to make sure this country lives within its means is a direct consequence of Labour’s incompetence and economic illiteracy.

House Building

Jim Cunningham: What guidance his Department has given to local authorities on steps they can take to increase the rate at which new homes are built.

Brandon Lewis: We have just extended the affordable homes programme—a total of £38 billion-worth of public and private investment, together ensuring that 275,000 new affordable homes will be built between 2015 and 2020. Council housing starts are at a 23-year high, and we expect the independent review into councils’ role in housing supply to report very soon.

Jim Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that greenfield sites can be very highly valued by local residents and are important for protecting natural habitats and heritage? As we look to build the much-needed houses, will he take steps to assist local authorities to make sure that brownfield sites and inner-city spaces are fully exhausted before any greenfield sites are built on?

Brandon Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that local authorities should be looking to develop brownfield sites first. In fact, we are looking at that with the new starter homes programme that the Prime Minister announced today. We have also put in more money over the summer to encourage local authorities to develop those brownfield sites first and to make them more viable.

Nicholas Soames: As my hon. Friend knows, Mid Sussex is making a great attempt to cope with the extraordinary demand for housing in the south-east. Does he agree that a rule allowing the Planning Inspectorate to accept housing development only when there is adequate housing infrastructure to support it would make a great difference to building in the south?

Brandon Lewis: That is a very good point. It is important for local authorities and developers to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support housing development, and authorities will seek to do that as part of the planning process and, indeed, as part of their own local-plan process. That is another example of how important it is for local authorities to have local plans in place.

Mark Reckless: If Medway council had acted properly in approving the building of 5,000 houses in a bird sanctuary at Lodge Hill, would the Minister have needed to write to the council offering his guidance on the need for an evidence base to be submitted to him by 12 January?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has stood in the House in the past and argued in favour of that development, but he has now changed his position. He and I have not had a conversation about the matter, and I think that that is the right approach, given that it involves a quasi-judicial planning process and the application is still live.

James Gray: Although both unemployment and homelessness are at an extraordinarily low level in North Wiltshire, we are being told that we must have thousands of unwanted new houses—particularly in the Chippenham area—followed by factories to give jobs to the people who will live in those new houses. While it is fine for houses to be built where they are needed, surely central Government should allow areas such as mine, where housing and jobs are roughly in balance, not to have them.

Brandon Lewis: As my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate, this Government ended the top-down approach adopted by the Labour Government, getting rid of the regional spatial strategies. It is now entirely for local authorities to make evidence-based assessments of local housing development needs, and then to consider how they can provide for them. Decisions should be locally driven, with local people in mind.

George Howarth: If what the Minister has just said is correct, why did his own planning inspectors suggest to Knowsley council that it should consider using up green-belt land for future housing development as part of its local-plan process?

Brandon Lewis: I have not seen the details of that case, but if the right hon. Gentleman forwards them to me, I shall be happy to look at them. In my experience, planning inspectors tend to challenge local authorities about their evidence bases. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that green belt constitutes an environmental constraint, and local authorities can use such constraints as evidence bases when it comes to what they can actually provide. It is for them to do the research, build those evidence bases, and make their case.

Emma Reynolds: The Minister recently suggested that councils did not need local plans, and that there was no role for central Government if they failed to adopt one. As he knows, however, without local plans communities have absolutely no say in where new houses are built. If he is really serious about local people deciding, why does he think that councils do not need local plans, and why will he not back our proposals to make it a statutory requirement for every council to have one?

Brandon Lewis: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got the planning process slightly wrong. Obviously local authorities in all circumstances have a say in planning, which is a quasi-judicial process. Planning applications go through local authorities. As I have said, there is no need for a statutory rule, because it is in authorities’ own best interests to have local plans, which mean local involvement and local decisions about what development should be allowed and where it should be allowed to take place. If there is no local plan, those matters will fall within the national planning policy framework.

Social Enterprise North West

Steve Rotheram: What assessment he has made of the effect of his Department’s demand for a repayment from Social Enterprise North West on local businesses and services in the North West of England.

Penny Mordaunt: My Department has worked with Merseyside partners to ensure that individuals and businesses are signposted to business support. My Department’s demand notice will not seek to reclaim any of the money from the 17 supporting organisations which operated in good faith throughout the process.

Steve Rotheram: I am sure that the Minister believes what she has said, but it is not entirely accurate, and it does not entirely answer the question. Social Enterprise North West has been ordered to pay back nearly £1.5 million, although it observed the funding requirements that were laid down by her own Department, and hundreds of jobs and businesses are endangered as a result. Has she received representations from councillors, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and local businesses—I have been told that she has—and what will she do to right her Department’s wrong?

Penny Mordaunt: It is not just a question of our accounting requirements; it is a question of the European Commission’s rules, and they are perfectly clear. Failing to provide evidence of the way in which money is spent puts funding at risk, and it is totally unacceptable that Social Enterprise North West cannot provide proper accounts for that public money. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. We will not be recouping money from the 17 supporting contractors which operated in good faith, no match funding has been lost, and the money from the European regional development fund that is being returned from the project will be reinvested in other existing business support services in the Liverpool city region.

Social Care

Meg Munn: What additional support he is providing to local authorities to meet the demand for social care.

Stephen Williams: This Government continue to deliver a fair settlement to every part of the country. In particular, we have introduced the £5.3 billion better care fund, which includes locally agreed plans for protecting adult social care services.

Meg Munn: Does the Minister not recognise that the better care fund is not new money, but is money taken from existing budgets? There are more people with more needs. Does the Minister not recognise that providing small amounts of low-level services to carers, who are providing for a lot of those needs, will ensure that most people can continue to be cared for at home, whereas now many people are facing difficulties in caring, and we will see elderly and disabled people living without dignity?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. Many Members in all parts of the House recognise the vital work that carers do in supporting their loved ones, and I have been particularly struck by children who care for brothers and sisters or parents. I
	certainly agree with the hon. Lady on that. In terms of resources, in the spending review the Government put an extra £470 million into supporting the Care Act 2014, and of course in the autumn statement a further £2 billion was announced to support the national health service.

George Hollingbery: The accident and emergency department at Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth continues to struggle to meet its four-hour waiting time targets. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the solution to this problem, the local NHS and the surrounding providers of care, the local authorities, must work together much more closely, particularly on the subject of discharge?

Stephen Williams: I absolutely agree that it is essential that local authorities and the health service work together to provide a seamless service for patients as they leave hospital and come into the care of local authorities. That is precisely what the better care fund is about. I am advised that the last round table in my hon. Friend’s district took place on Friday.

Richard Burden: Is the Minister aware that, despite having cuts to its spending power of about twice the national average, Birmingham is increasing its child protection budget? To ensure that other forms of social care do not suffer as a result and to meet Birmingham’s long-term needs, some additional support is required. Will the Minister agree, perhaps in conjunction with colleagues from the Department for Education, to meet a delegation from Birmingham to look at what is possible?

Stephen Williams: Birmingham city council has obviously had considerable difficulties recently, which the Department has been heavily involved in trying to solve, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific proposals to put forward and would like to write to me or the Secretary of State, I am sure that we will look at them very carefully.

Anne McIntosh: I understand that the Chancellor announced that the inheritance tax threshold will be frozen until 2017 and the money raised thereby will be put into social care. Is that part of the money my hon. Friend just announced, or is that additional?

Stephen Williams: That would be additional money, I believe, but just under £2 billion in additional support was announced for the national health service in the autumn statement, money that I am sure will be well received and well spent.

Parking Enforcement

Nick de Bois: What steps he is taking to stop unfair parking enforcement practices.

Eric Pickles: Councils are making a profit of £667 million a year from parking. That is unacceptable, so this Government are bringing forward a series of measures to make local parking fairer for residents and shoppers. This includes curtailing the use
	of CCTV spy cameras, introducing grace periods, and giving local residents and firms new rights to demand a review of yellow lines and parking charges in their area.

Nick de Bois: Over-zealous parking enforcement by these methods, and in particular by mobile cameras in Enfield’s Hertford road, is one of the most damaging practices to shops and shopkeepers, and the more so because Labour-controlled Enfield council is reducing the number of parking spaces. What advice does my right hon. Friend have for this council to put shoppers and high streets first?

Eric Pickles: On my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, he was kind enough to show me Hertford road, which does not have a very easy trading environment. We have placed an obligation on local authorities to look after local businesses, and we know that that plays an enormously important part in people’s management of their shops. I would simply urge Enfield council to get together with local traders to ensure that people do not have to drive further and further from Enfield to do their shopping.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Secretary of State join me and many Congleton residents in objecting to proposals to introduce parking charges at Congleton War Memorial hospital for the first time? That plan is likely to increase, rather than decrease, local parking congestion, and rather than benefiting patients and their families it will in all likelihood benefit the car park charging company through aggressive fines.

Eric Pickles: I have a War Memorial hospital in my own constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has been vocal in pressing local health authorities on this practice, which particularly affects people who are visiting patients who are in hospital for a long stay. It does not seem to be the most sensible way of raising funds.

Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

Lilian Greenwood: What assessment he has made of trends in the level of (a) homelessness and (b) rough sleeping.

Kris Hopkins: Homelessness is lower now than in 27 of the last 30 years, and since this time last year we have seen a 38% decrease in the number of families in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks. This Government have supported innovation through the roll-out of No Second Night Out and StreetLink, which means that rough sleepers are being found more quickly and given the help they need to get them off the streets.

Lilian Greenwood: The Minister’s response is astonishing. Under this Government, we have seen disproportionate cuts to the Supporting People funding, the disappearance of street outreach workers and an increase in homelessness and rough sleeping of more than a third. The number of homeless families in Nottingham has risen by a quarter in the past year alone. What assurances can the Minister give me that the proposed review of exempt accommodation to be conducted jointly by his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions will not result in this disgraceful situation becoming even worse?

Kris Hopkins: This Government are tackling homelessness using funds from welfare reform, with access to some £1 billion. I should like to make a comparison between our record and that of the previous Government. There were 136 homeless acceptances in Nottingham this year compared with 493 under the previous Administration at peak. This year, 90 households are in temporary accommodation compared with 391 under Labour, and as a consequence of this Government’s intervention, there are no people in bed and breakfast.

Stephen Mosley: Earlier in the autumn, my hon. Friend the Minister visited Chester to see some of the homelessness provision there. He saw some first-rate services, but he also heard that homeless people were leaving other council areas, including Liverpool and Wrexham, to come to Chester to take advantage of our services. What will he do to ensure that Labour councils fulfil their obligations in the same way as Tory ones do?

Kris Hopkins: I recognise the caring work undertaken by my hon. Friend’s Conservative-led council to look after those vulnerable people. It is not appropriate for local authorities, of whatever political badge, to bus people from one authority area to another.

Karen Buck: Last year, the then Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), said:
	“There is absolutely no excuse for families to be sent miles away without proper regard for their circumstances…The law is clear: councils have a responsibility to take into account people’s jobs and schools when securing homes for those in need.”
	Why, then, has the number of families being housed outside their local area increased by almost one third in this past year alone, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Kris Hopkins: I reiterate that it is against the law for councils to move numbers of individuals wholesale to other authorities, but I would point out that 14,220 out- of-district placements, equating to 93% of the total, took place in London local authorities.

Council Tax

Matthew Offord: What steps his Department is taking to freeze council tax charges for 2015-16.

Eric Pickles: Under Labour, council tax more than doubled. Under this Government, it has fallen by 11% in real terms. Further funding will be available to freeze council tax in 2015-16, which will mean five consecutive years of freeze funding since 2011-12. That is worth £1,075 for an average household over this Parliament. An announcement on the detail of this will be made shortly.

Matthew Offord: I am very grateful for the Secretary of State’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and I had the tremendous problem of keeping council tax down in the London borough of Barnet under the last Labour Government. What steps will the Government take to continue in
	other areas to help hard-pressed families, pensioners and individuals by supporting them with their cost of living and to ensure that the London borough of Barnet protects front-line services?

Eric Pickles: I commend Barnet for freezing council tax for four successive years. It proves that councils can run their services efficiently and encourage growth without increasing taxes on local people. The council tax went from being a modest sum in people’s budgets to being absolutely overbearing, and it is exactly right that the most vulnerable people—pensioners and the like—have benefited from this freeze.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier reply. As council tax is such a large bill, especially for those on fixed incomes, will he congratulate my local South Derbyshire district council on keeping its council tax at a zero increase for the past four years? We hope that this year’s settlement from the Government will help it achieve a record five years of frozen council tax.

Eric Pickles: On behalf of the Government, I say bless you, South Derbyshire. You have done a fantastic job. You have looked after the coffers very carefully and you have fulfilled good quality services at a reasonable cost, without going for the incremental rise every year.

House Building

Barry Sheerman: What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

Sharon Hodgson: What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

Alex Cunningham: What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

Brandon Lewis: We are making excellent progress in helping to deliver large-scale housing sites. Through long-term loans for infrastructure, capacity funding and brokerage, we have helped unlock or accelerate more than 90,000 homes to date, and a further 200,000 homes could be unlocked or accelerated on sites shortlisted for investment and wider support.

Barry Sheerman: There are so many hard-working people in this country, including many firefighters, who would listen to that reply and not be able to believe the complacency. We have a Department with no leadership, no vision and no ambition, when we need a million new homes for our elderly people and for our young people, who have no chance of a home. This Government will face the wrath of those people at the next general election.

Brandon Lewis: As before, I am sure there was a question in there somewhere. [Interruption.] And the audience agree. I find the hon. Gentleman’s follow-up point slightly bizarre, in the sense that this Government have provided roughly 700,000 new homes in the past
	four or five years, including more council houses than were built in the entire period of the previous Labour Government.

Sharon Hodgson: But the truth is that the Government are simply not building enough affordable homes. The number of homes built for social rent over the past year is the lowest it has been for 20 years, so it is little surprise that the waiting list in Sunderland has increased on their watch, whereas it more than halved under Labour. Thankfully, these Ministers have less than five months left in post, but may we have a little more action from them, even in those five months, and a lot fewer re-announcements of yet more empty announcements?

Brandon Lewis: I simply point the hon. Lady to the facts: we have now delivered around 220,000 affordable homes in this Parliament, and there will be 165,000 over the next three years. It will be the fastest rate of building we have seen in more than 20 years, having inherited from the last Labour Government the lowest level of building since 1923. It was an absolute disgrace what was left by the last Government.

Alex Cunningham: My constituents are concerned that if more houses are ever to be built on Teesside again in substantial numbers, more farmland could be swallowed up even though countless brownfield sites are available. Many of these already have planning permission, yet developers have left them derelict for donkey’s years. What steps is the Minister planning to take to get action from such developers? What will he do if they refuse to bring these kinds of sites, many of them close to our town centres, back into use?

Brandon Lewis: As I said earlier, we have in fact put some money in over the course of the summer—a few hundred millions pounds—to encourage brownfield development. We are also now looking at the housing zones, and we will be making some announcements on that fairly soon to make sure we get these sites unlocked. When local authorities are developing their local plans, they are making sure that they are delivering viable sites to provide the houses we all want to see built.

Stuart Andrew: Leeds city council has divided the city into areas in order to set the house building targets, and in Aireborough the vast majority of the sites being considered are in the green belt. I am aware that the use of green belt can happen only in “exceptional circumstances”. Will the Minister confirm what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point about protecting the green belt, which is something that we always seek to do. The Secretary of State and I have outlined some further guidance on that in the past few months to make it clear that building on green belt land is something that we do as a last resort. Indeed, it is one of the exceptional circumstances to be taken into account against development to make sure that we protect our green belt. Obviously, every planning application has to be taken forward and adjudged on its merits by the local authority, planning inspectors and the Department.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that one challenge in bringing forward large-scale housing sites is the failure of local authorities to allocate sufficient land for housing in their local plan? For example, the
	Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council has failed to bring forward a local plan, whereas Rugby borough council has had its local plan in place for some time, and has brought forward a site for 6,000 new homes at the Rugby radio site.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Rugby is an excellent example of a good, well-run council, which seeks to support growth and to provide homes for local people. It is important that local areas, in conjunction with the community, work out their housing need, make provision for it, and take advantage of the £1.5 billion that we are putting in to help unlock those kinds of sites.

Douglas Carswell: The coalition came to office promising localism whereby locally elected councillors would decide on large-scale housing developments. In Tendring, the Government have now insisted on an extra 12,000 houses. How is that localism?

Brandon Lewis: That is not how the system works. We do not have top-down targets. We got rid of the regional spatial strategies. It is up to the local authority to work out its housing needs and to look at the evidence base to see what it can provide locally, taking into account any environmental constraints.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The recent designation of Bicester as a garden city brings not a single new home to the table, as Bicester had already planned for and started to build 13,000 new homes as outlined in its local plan. Is it not time that the Government thought seriously about how to deliver our much needed new settlements rather than simply repackaging existing developments?

Brandon Lewis: With respect, I think the hon. Lady has missed the point. Bicester itself came forward and wanted to develop on garden city principles. When I was there last week, officials showed me around the excellent work that the local authority is doing to release some of the land, including looking at the infrastructure to see how they can make it possible. We are not following a top-down approach. I appreciate that the Labour party wants to have a suit in Whitehall deciding who builds and where, but we believe in localism. Local areas should lead on garden cities. They should come to us with the outlines of what they want to do. I am talking about local decisions, by local people and for local people.

Business Rates

Pauline Latham: What estimate he has made of the number of small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Derbyshire local authority area which will have a reduction in business rates in 2015-16.

Penny Mordaunt: We do not hold figures for that year, but estimate that our retail relief is currently benefiting around 300,000 premises in England, including 4,700 in Derbyshire. We are also doubling small business rate relief for a
	further year, which is currently benefiting around 575,000 businesses, including 12,300 in my hon. Friend’s local authority area.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Minister for her reply. As she knows, Belper in my constituency recently won the Great British High Street competition of 2014. What measures are the Secretary of State and his Department taking so that other towns and high streets can follow in Belper’s footsteps?

Penny Mordaunt: As well as providing rate relief and a raft of other packages, we are helping by instigating initiatives such as the Great British High Street competition. In entering that competition, Belper has enabled us to identify good practice, which we are now able to share. We have produced a publication, which we launched last week, and we are now rolling out a package of further training and support for areas in the country that are not as far ahead as Belper.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister for firefighters is on her feet, and taking into account the question about all those shops and businesses, will she agree that the firefighters have to deal with those? If there is a fire, an industrial disaster or a flood, the Government paint a lovely picture of our firefighters and the work that they do. Why does she not accept that the Government should be leaving their pension alone? Let them keep their pension.

Penny Mordaunt: If I can answer that question and remain in order—[Interruption.] We are obviously debating this matter later on today. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the regulations that have been laid are an improvement on the 2006 scheme that his party brought in. A recent serious fire in Staffordshire highlighted a really good business liaison programme between fire and rescue services. Even business that were not directly affected by the fire were able to call on those services to enable them to continue trading. That model should be rolled out elsewhere.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was characteristically ingenious in the construction of his question, and we are grateful to him—I say that in all sincerity—but I advise the House that it was in any case my intention to get to Question 19, and I remain cautiously optimistic that we shall do so.

Empty Homes

Jason McCartney: What assessment he has made of the rate of change in the number of empty homes since May 2010.

Stephen Williams: The number of homes empty for more than six months is now at its lowest level since records began. This Government have achieved a year-on-year reduction in long-term empty homes through council tax incentives such as the new homes bonus, opportunities to increase council tax and a Government programme of £200 million for empty homes funding.

Jason McCartney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally perverse that Labour-run Kirklees council continues to forge ahead with building homes on greenfield sites when there are thousands of empty properties and numerous brownfield sites in my beautiful part of west Yorkshire?

Stephen Williams: The national planning policy framework does indeed incentivise local authorities to bring forward brownfield sites first, and the Government want 90% of suitable brownfield land to have permissions in place through local development orders by 2020. With regard to my hon. Friend’s local authority in Kirklees, there are 718 long-term empties for which it charges the council tax premium, raising £387,000. If it worked with the owners to bring those properties back into use, it would get £783,000 in new homes bonus this year, plus £4.7 million over the full six years that the funding is available.

Andrew Gwynne: From the Minister’s response, we might think that everything is perfect in the garden, but the Office for National Statistics has shown that over 1 million homes are still empty. At the same time there are record numbers of people in this country wanting to rent affordable homes. What is he going to do to ensure that local authorities that are not using their powers to bring empty homes back into use now do so in order to end this absolute scandal of homelessness and empty homes in Britain?

Stephen Williams: I do not recognise the figure that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I will have a look at it. My information is that in England the overall number of vacant properties has fallen from the 770,000 when we came into office to 635,000 now. I write constantly to local authorities to remind them of the suite of powers available for bringing empty homes back into use, and I have gone on a series of visits across the country to encourage social enterprises, in particular—I have visited Leeds Empties, for example—to work with the community in order to achieve the double benefit of bringing a home back into use and getting some social enterprise spin-off benefit.

Firefighters Pension Scheme

Jim Fitzpatrick: What estimate he has made of the number of firefighters who will retire early on medical grounds with a reduced pension after the introduction of the new firefighters pension scheme.

Penny Mordaunt: Any firefighter who retires early on medical grounds, owing to being permanently unable to undertake their role, will be entitled to take their pension without a reduction. Our final scheme provides a better pension for those firefighters than the alternative scheme for which the Fire Brigades Union is lobbying.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Minister said on 10 November that no firefighter who fails to meet the standard would lose their job, yet Dr Tony Williams, who was appointed by the Government to assess the regulations, has said
	that two thirds of firefighters will not make the cut. How can she reconcile those two opposing views and cost firefighters over 20% of their pension?

Penny Mordaunt: That is not what Dr Williams said. The 2006 scheme, which was introduced under the previous Labour Government, has had firefighters working until 60. They have been working under the pension scheme with no protections if they fail a fitness test and are unable to continue their operational role through no fault of their own. We are introducing those protections. There is a written ministerial statement today and a statutory instrument will appear tomorrow, and it will guarantee, placing on a statutory footing—obviously firefighters are entitled to ill health retirement—that if there is not an underlying medical condition and they cannot pass the fitness test, either they will receive an alternative role or the authority will have to initiate a pension.

Duncan Hames: I have read the ministerial statement that has been placed in the Library this afternoon. It sets out the requirement for local authorities to consider an authority-initiated retirement. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is her intention that under these circumstances firefighters will be guaranteed an authority-initiated retirement?

Penny Mordaunt: Absolutely. We are very clear in the ministerial statement that we have tabled today and in the guidance that will accompany it that that is what we expect to happen. In addition, because I recognise that firefighters need those safeguards, my Department will carry out an audit.

Topical Questions

Alistair Burt: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: Some 180,000 homeowners have bought or reserved a property during this Parliament through one of the Government-backed schemes. Our support for home ownership also prompted a sharp increase in house building to a six-year high. Today we are setting out the next step of our long-term economic plan to improve the housing market. The starter homes programme will offer 100,000 first-time buyers the opportunity to buy a new home with a 20% discount.

Alistair Burt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Has he received much communication from some of our smaller councils—town and parish councils—about the pressure they are under from vexatious freedom of information requests, inappropriate pressure from members of the public, and sometimes problems of resolving their difficulties with a monitoring council, such as those between Arlesey and Central Bedfordshire in my constituency? Does such a problem arise rather more often these days?

Eric Pickles: It is not a general problem, though we have come across it. I know that my right hon. Friend is very disturbed by it. The best way to avoid freedom of information requests is to be open, straightforward and
	transparent, and sometimes some authorities are not. But there can be no excuse for persecuting a public official. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 lays down guidance with regard to vexatious claims. I understand that my right hon. Friend intends to write to me and I will look at the case very carefully.

Hilary Benn: May I start by expressing the Opposition’s concern about the situation in Sydney today? Our thoughts are with all the people who appear to have been taken hostage and with their families.
	We are all aware of the threat posed by Islamism, the extremist ideology that wrongly claims to be informed by Islam and which attempts to recruit and radicalise our citizens. Can the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what his Department is doing with faith groups to help identify and deal with the sources of extremism and radicalisation in our communities?

Eric Pickles: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about events in Sydney. Our primary thoughts must be with the hostages, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be as heartened as I am by the response to the worries expressed by Muslims in Australia about travelling on public transport, and the “I’ll ride with you” campaign, whereby Australian citizens are standing by the Muslim community and ensuring that Muslims feel they are good Australians.
	We have spent about £45 million on integration projects since 2010 and an extra £11 million to support 29 projects this year, but I expect the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned about work with specific groups. Indeed, we have given priority to working with groups in east London, east Birmingham and along the M62 corridor. We work closely with them and with various other groups in the spirit of “not in their name”, to show that we recognise the full strength of the Islamic community’s love of peace.

Hilary Benn: Interfaith dialogue of the type that the Secretary of State describes with mainstream religious groups is important. The problem is that radical Islamists are not part of it, and Muslim communities are just as keen as others to know what he is doing to help them identify, isolate and deal with the conditions in which such an ideology develops. Does he agree that it is now time for his Department to focus its efforts on helping families to stop the radicalisation of their children and on promoting greater mutual understanding so as to undermine the corrosive effects of Islamism, which so damages our values and our democracy?

Eric Pickles: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I intend to put out a written parliamentary statement that lays out the full breadth of what we have been doing to deal with this issue. The empowerment of women and of families in knowing what is going on on the web is a recognition of how things have changed. Those who expect this to come out of the mosque are living in a past world. This battle is fought on the internet and by modern methods of communication. Of course, as always, I will keep the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends completely informed about what we do.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Front Benchers appear to have a plan to impose a homes tax on people earning more than £42,000, and this is causing great concern to my constituents in Wimbledon. I note that all Labour’s mayoral candidates for London have disowned the plan. Does he agree, first, that this tax is inequitable, and secondly, that our Government would never impose such an inequitable tax on my voters?

Eric Pickles: We certainly have no intention of persecuting the good people of Wimbledon; nor do we intend to make people suddenly find themselves in a mansion that they did not realise they owned. These are people who bought a property a few years ago and whose incomes have not gone up, but now Labour apparently wants to take £3,000 or £4,000 from them every year.

Dan Jarvis: Those who risk their lives to protect us deserve a decent pension. Will the Minister explain why firefighters have recently been on strike in England, but not in Scotland or in Wales?

Penny Mordaunt: I am afraid there are some myths about what is happening in the other nations. Industrial action is taking place in the other nations; they have not settled. In fact, many aspects of England’s scheme are better. We will have a full debate on the issue this afternoon, when I hope that we will able to put some of the myths to bed.

Nigel Evans: Langho, one of my pleasant villages in beautiful Ribble Valley, has recently had three hideous wind turbines imposed on it by appeal, against the wishes of local people, the local council, and, indeed, me. Will the Minister assure us that, in future, planning inspectors will give far more weight to localism and to the views of local people before deciding to impose hideous industrial furniture on a local community?

Kris Hopkins: It would be inappropriate to talk about a particular case that is still live in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will say, however, that the Secretary of State has given clear guidance about pre-application consultation with communities. There are guidelines about protecting landscape and heritage, and the Secretary of State is able to recover applications if he believes that we need to test those guidelines. The best thing that my hon. Friend’s constituents can do is to ensure that they have a strong local plan in place that determines renewable sources of energy.

Joan Walley: The Minister just praised firefighters from Staffordshire. I met them again last week, and they, like me, cannot understand why the Government, at this eleventh hour before the debate later today, will not agree a negotiated settlement on the firefighters’ pension scheme regulations. Why are the Government not taking account of the Williams report, why are they peddling the myth of redeployment, and why cannot we have a fair pension for those having to retire early on health grounds?

Penny Mordaunt: Again, the hon. Lady needs to be aware of the facts. We are taking account of the Williams report. We are putting in place protections that firefighters have not had before, including for those on the 2006 scheme, which requires them to work until 60. They are entitled to ill health retirement, as before, on an enhanced basis. Those who are unable to retain their fitness as they age—this is specifically for older workers—will get another role or an unreduced pension. [Interruption.] Those are the facts. If there is no operational role, they will get an unreduced pension. We need to get that message out to firefighters, because they are going to be making decisions about their financial future based on their understanding of the scheme, and it would be quite wrong to mislead them on that.

Robin Walker: Small independent shops are the lifeblood of our high streets and I am glad to say, with Christmas just around the corner, that Worcester’s independent retailers say they are seeing increased footfall and that they are looking forward to their £1,500 discount on business rates next year. Will the Minister confirm that reforming business rates and discounts to small businesses can, alongside cuts to job taxes, help small businesses drive the economic recovery?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I take this opportunity to congratulate Worcester on being a finalist in the great British high street competition? In addition to the discount he mentioned, the autumn statement also doubled small business rate relief for a further year and maintained the 2% cap on the inflation increase for next year. I am sure that all those things will help Worcester potentially to take the prize next year.

John Mann: When a useless Government Minister is sacked, including by the electorate, they get a huge pay out and a massive pension. Why is there one rule for the politicians and another rule for the firefighters?

Penny Mordaunt: We will debate this issue this afternoon, but I stress that we need to stick to the facts of the case. Many things about the regulations that came into law last week are an improvement on some of the schemes. We have addressed genuine concerns about people working until they are older. I hope this afternoon will provide us with the opportunity to get those facts on the record. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the previous scheme will finish at the end of this financial year, so if the regulations were revoked firefighters would be without a pension scheme and they would lose all the protections they currently enjoy.

Paul Uppal: This Government have introduced measures that cap the amount that councils can charge leaseholders for repairs to their properties and homes. In my constituency, some residents of Merridale court are being charged up to £12,000 by Wolverhampton Homes, with bills that have come all at once rather than spread over a period of time. Do Ministers think it is fair and reasonable that those pensioners should have to pay those fees?

Brandon Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking on the case on behalf of his residents. He is absolutely right that we should ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that residents should be protected from any erroneous or over-the-top charges, as Florrie’s law, which was introduced in August, seeks to do. I would go further and say that, if those Wolverhampton residents do not feel they are being dealt with properly or appropriately, I would encourage them to go to the Leasehold Advisory Service, which can consider the first-tier tribunal to review their cases.

Geoffrey Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that I asked him during the previous Question Time to give an early decision on the Coventry gateway project and that I followed that up with a letter? I have not received a reply to either request. I am sure he means no discourtesy, but could he tell us when we might expect a response, because a lot of jobs, business rates and development in the south of Coventry depend on it?

Eric Pickles: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not replying earlier. He will understand that the issue is very much tied up with adjoining authorities. A number of schemes are currently being negotiated under various growth deals and I hope the Government will be able to make a decision fairly soon.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State has made localism his thing and he has come across very strongly as the champion of the people. Will he ensure that the people’s voice is heard and listened to when the first wave of
	hydraulic fracking applications go through, and will he insist that the Government follow the precautionary principle so that all environmental and health concerns will be addressed before an application is granted?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for standing up to make sure that the process is followed correctly. Obviously, the planning process is quasi-judicial and planning authorities must go through the full process. I will make sure that the chief planning officer keeps an eye on what is happening and ensures that the process is followed, and I will keep an eye on the case myself.

Clive Betts: As I understand it, we will get an announcement later this week about the local government financial settlement for next year, which could involve a 10% reduction in local authority spending. That is as big a cut in one year as central Government Departments have faced throughout the whole of this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State, in the interests of transparency, give an assurance that he will come to this House and make an oral statement, rather than hide behind a written statement as he did last year?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman’s recollection is wrong: we made a statement from this Dispatch Box. We cannot anticipate what the business managers of this House will do. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s words into consideration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but as usual demand has exceeded supply. We must now press on.

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Vernon Coaker: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the role of UK armed forces in Iraq.

Michael Fallon: The United Kingdom is providing substantial support to the Government of Iraq through air strikes, surveillance, the gifting and transporting of equipment and the training of Iraqi forces in specialist skills. About 50 UK personnel are working with the Danes in Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq, carrying out combat infantry and sharpshooter training, and we are coming to the end of the second of four three-week courses. We also have about 10 military personnel in Irbil, seeing how we can assist the Government of Iraq in training and equipping other Kurdish forces. The international coalition is developing its plan to build the capacity of Iraqi security forces and any future UK training contribution would be absorbed into this coalition plan.
	In early November, I announced our intention to provide further training to the Iraqi military. No decisions on troop numbers, units or locations have been made, although we expect to focus on providing expertise in countering explosive devices. During Defence questions on 24 November, I also announced our intention to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of advisory personnel to command headquarters. We are considering what contribution we can make and the details of any of these decisions will be announced to Parliament in the usual way.

Vernon Coaker: I am sure that many Members will, like me, have been surprised and dismayed that the Defence Secretary told a Sunday newspaper about the deployment of UK armed forces to Iraq before he told this House. Is it not true that that led to turmoil in his department? Yesterday morning, he said that hundreds of troops would be deployed across four training bases, but yesterday afternoon a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that no decisions on troop numbers, units or locations had been made, so how many are there? What message does he think this sends to our armed forces? Is it one of clarity and decisiveness or one of confusion and uncertainty? These are serious matters and the British public will want to know that this is not being undertaken lightly.
	We have supported steps taken by the Government, regional partners and the international coalition to combat ISIL, including the provision by UK forces of training and equipment to the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces, but we will scrutinise any developments and ensure that appropriate questions are asked. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the risk involved in expanding the training role to several locations across Iraq and the status and rules of engagement of force protection personnel? Will both training units and combat-ready personnel be solely under UK command and comprise UK servicemen and women alone? What role will the RAF, which is currently undertaking combat missions in Iraq, play? What discussions has he had with the Iraqi Government about this deployment? Does he agree that there must be no misunderstanding about British involvement in Iraq at any stage, which is why we need a clearly defined strategy?
	There has not been enough clarity about the role of the UK armed forces, the scale of their involvement and the time frame for training operations. The Defence Secretary said just over a month ago that that would be very limited and at that stage only a dozen UK troops were involved in specific training tasks. Is there a strategy or are the Government making it up as they go along? Will the Defence Secretary explain reports that the National Security Council is meeting later this week to discuss and approve something he has already announced?
	Finally, does he intend to come back to the House to report on the deployment so that we can have a full, open and proper discussion on these hugely significant matters? That is what the British public would expect and demand.

Michael Fallon: As I said, I have already announced, including in this House, that we are considering what further contribution we can make to the training of Iraqi forces. There is nothing new about that. Yesterday, I made it very clear that the numbers are yet to be finalised. When they are finalised, they will, of course, be announced to the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked whether there will be a proper assessment of risk. Yes, I will take advice from my military advisers on the risk involved. On force protection, we must make sure that any training that we provide is properly protected, even though it is well away from the front line. The RAF strikes will continue. I will keep the House updated on the number of missions that are flown and the number of strikes.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the Iraqi Government. I make it clear to the House that everything that we are doing in Iraq and everything that we are considering doing in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi Government. I clarified that in my visit to Baghdad and Irbil last month. It is precisely because the Iraqi Government have asked us and our coalition partners for help that we are considering this action at the moment.
	I cannot comment on specific details in respect of the National Security Council, but I repeat that the details of our final decisions will be reported to the House.

Liam Fox: Surely the key question is whether ISIS poses a threat to us, directly or indirectly. If it does, it needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. Are not too many western Governments getting close to conflict by opinion poll? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of co-operation with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, which remains a key factor in whether we can win a ground war against ISIS?

Michael Fallon: The advance of ISIL is a direct threat to this country and other western countries, which is why some 40 countries are involved in the international coalition and why a number of them are considering putting personnel in to assist the training effort. On my predecessor’s second question, the support and enlistment of the tribes of the Anbar is critical in pushing ISIL back towards the western frontier of Iraq. There have been encouraging signs, but it is up to the Iraqi Government
	and the reformed Iraqi army to ensure that, in all their actions, they command the support of Sunnis, Shi’as and Kurds.

Gisela Stuart: Some of us had the privilege to meet British and Danish troops in Iraq last week. The training includes medical training. Given that 60% of peshmerga injuries are caused by improvised explosive devices, where loss of blood is a significant factor, why are we not training them in the use of tourniquets, which was very beneficial to our troops in Afghanistan?

Michael Fallon: I will certainly look at that suggestion. We gained expertise in countering IEDs and vehicle-borne explosive devices in Afghanistan and, as the hon. Lady says, we also accumulated considerable expertise in dealing with the injuries that they cause.

Rory Stewart: I urge the Secretary of State please to ensure that, along with the trainers, we deploy people who have expertise in Iraq, both military and civilian, to look specifically at the role of the Shi’a militia and the Sunni tribes so that we can credibly sit at the table with the Iraqi Government and the United States to challenge and debate the overall strategy, and drive a Sunni reconciliation.

Michael Fallon: I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, said. It is vital that the new Iraqi Government not only consider themselves to be inclusive, but demonstrate that they are inclusive. They must command the support of the Sunni tribes and show that the Shi’a militia that are associated with the effort to halt ISIL are part of an overall inclusive effort that cuts across political, religious and tribal divisions. I have emphasised that throughout. There are encouraging signs in the Iraqi Government, in the reform of the Iraqi military and in Defence Minister Obeidi’s proposals for a national guard that can help to secure ground that has been won back from ISIL. However, there is a long way to go in ensuring that that effort is genuinely inclusive.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Given the current UK deployment in Iraq, what long-term consideration is being given to the implications of training the peshmerga on possible independence for Kurdistan in the future and on relationships with the Iraqi army and the Iraqi Government?

Michael Fallon: I welcome the recent rapprochement between the regional administration in the Kurdish areas and Baghdad. It is essential that that is built upon so that oil revenues can be properly allocated and spending, especially on the military, can be considered by the Government of Iraq as a whole. The priority now is surely to halt the advance of ISIL and help the Government of Iraq, the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces to push it back from the territory that it has claimed.

Bob Russell: Last Monday afternoon, members of the Defence Committee were at the presidential palace in Baghdad, and in answer to my questions the President said no to British troops on the ground against insurgents but yes to more equipment
	and training and a continuation of the airstrikes. Does the Secretary of State agree with the President and me that if UK combat troops returned, they could be regarded as occupying forces, which would create other difficulties for Iraq?

Michael Fallon: I agree with both my hon. Friend and the President of Iraq, in no particular order. The President of Iraq himself has said that he does not want British or any other foreign combat troops involved, which is why we need to make it absolutely clear that we are not proposing to return combat troops to Iraq. The effort that we are making is relatively small-scale and should be seen alongside the contributions being promised by others, including the Germans, the Spanish, the Danes, the Italians, the Australians and the New Zealanders, all of whom are considering what effort they can make to help with training and equipment.

Mike Gapes: Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to defeat this ISIL criminal caliphate cult, or Daesh, it will have to be done not just in Iraq but in its headquarters and heartlands in Syria? What is the international coalition of 40 countries to which he referred going to do about that?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of these matters through his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is right that in the end ISIL can be defeated only if it is defeated in both countries, Syria and Iraq. That is why we welcome the strikes that other members of the international coalition, including the United States but also our allies in the Gulf, have undertaken against ISIL, particularly in the north of Syria. That helps to disrupt ISIL’s supply lines into Iraq. Our part—it is all that the House will allow us to do at the moment—is in Iraq, but we have plenty to do there through airstrikes, surveillance, the supply of equipment and the consideration that we are now undertaking of further training.

Bob Stewart: When I deployed to Bosnia in 1992, it was supposedly in a non-combat role, but the chiefs of staff insisted on ensuring that I had a field surgical team with an operating theatre and three general practitioners, for several hundred people. If we deploy several hundred people into Iraq, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are adequate medical facilities to look after our soldiers if by chance they are wounded, even though they are not in a combat role?

Michael Fallon: The House has the benefit of my hon. Friend’s considerable expertise in these matters, and I will certainly take up his suggestion. I emphasise that if we deploy further personnel, they will not be in the combat zones or on the front line. This will be a training effort to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces in some areas of expertise, in particular in encountering improvised explosive devices, as well as the sharpshooter tactics on which we have already been instructing.

Madeleine Moon: Last week the members of the Defence Committee who went to Baghdad met Vice President Ayad Allawi. He brought with him 30 tribal sheikhs who described the total destruction of Shi’a and Sunni villages, the murder of men in the villages, and the abduction of women and
	children. People were left with nothing in an attempt to clear land for criminal elements within the militias. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the training we provide is not used by militias for their criminal activities, because often those militias are also part of the Iraqi army?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Lady is right and we must always be careful who we are training. It is important that the Iraqi Government—she will have seen this on her visit to Baghdad last week—follow through on the reforms they are proposing. The army must become genuinely inclusive and militias must be properly under control. Holding ground that can be liberated must have the full-hearted support of local populations, and that will be particularly important as ISIL is pushed back in the tribal areas of the Anbar.

James Gray: The brave peshmerga whom we visited being trained by the British Army in Sulaymaniyah last week did a fantastic job in stopping the breakneck advance of ISIL in the summer, and they are to be congratulated. They did so against huge odds in terms of personnel, equipment and training, and to this day they are a pretty makeshift army. Does the Secretary of State agree that although it is vital that this should be a Kurdish or Iraqi battle against ISIL, we have a vast role to play in terms of equipment, training—particularly IED training—and we must do our part to combat the dreadful wickedness that is ISIL?

Michael Fallon: Yes. ISIL is a threat to us in this country and generally to the west, as well as a threat to all those in Iraq—particularly those of other religions or indeed their own religion—who want to live at peace. That is why, with the support of the House, since early summer we have been considering what we can do to supply the peshmerga. We have supplied heavy machine guns and helped to airlift other equipment and ammunition that is needed, and we are considering—it is still only considering—the scope of training that we are able to offer in some of those specialist skills.

Angus Robertson: The public are right to be concerned about mission creep in Iraq, and about the lack of candour by the Ministry of Defence when it comes to boots on the ground. In September I asked the Secretary of State whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq. I was given a holding answer in October, no reply in November, and we are now getting towards the end of December. Can we have some candour from the Secretary of State on the simple question of whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq?

Michael Fallon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received an answer to that question and I will look into it. We have made it clear that we are not involved on the ground in combat in Iraq, as that goes beyond the wishes of this House. We are involved in air strikes, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and certainly in the supply of equipment and training.

Alistair Burt: May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on Syria? I met representatives of the Syrian national coalition last
	week. Bearing in mind the vital part that the repression in Syria plays in giving support to ISIL throughout the region, can the Secretary of State say when he intends to come back to the House to explain what more we can do to support fighters in Syria who are currently fighting Assad and the extremists in order to protect the Syrian people?

Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend, who was a most distinguished Minister for the middle east, is certainly right to advise the House that Syria should not be neglected in all this. As well as the surveillance capabilities that the military is providing, we are in discussions with the international coalition about making a contribution to a programme to train the Syrian opposition, as I told the House during Defence questions on 24 November. We continue to scope that mission with our international partners. That kind of training would almost inevitably have to happen outside Syria itself, but it is under active consideration at the moment.

Ann Clwyd: The urgent question has illustrated that we need a far broader debate than we are having at present. I visited Iraq 26 times when I was special envoy on human rights. Many of the things we put in place were not just military matters: we trained civil society, we retrained journalists, we insisted on the rights of women and we trained the judiciary. I have just visited both Baghdad and Kurdistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and we need to look again at what we actually achieved. My worry is that some of those gains are now slipping away and we need to reinforce them.

Michael Fallon: I think the House will endorse that. The right hon. Lady knows as much about Iraq, in particular about the Kurdish areas, as anybody in this House. There are lessons on the type of aid that was given and what we can do now to help the new democratically elected Government in Iraq to build on some of the earlier support we offered. On whether there should be a debate on Iraq, that is not a matter for me. However, I look forward to my appearance before the Select Committee later this week.

Julian Lewis: When insurgents such as ISIL break cover and seize and hold territory, they lose the advantages of secrecy and surprise. It should therefore not be too difficult in the short to medium term to expel them, but then they will go back to guerrilla and terror tactics. Will the Government have in place a medium to long-term strategy for containing that sort of warfare? We have lacked such a strategy in the past when we oscillated between nation building at one extreme and doing little or nothing at the other.

Michael Fallon: The tactics of ISIL vary and there is some evidence that it is already altering its tactics in the face of air strikes. The overall strategy has to be led and endorsed by the Government of Iraq. It is very important that, in the end, the campaign is led by the home-grown army of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with the support of the international coalition. The strategy has to be formulated there rather than here, but we can offer specialist expertise.

Jeremy Corbyn: In 2003, there was massive opposition to Britain going into Iraq. Those concerns are still there, yet we have now heard
	that more British troops are going back into Iraq and that a British base is being built in Bahrain. Is the Secretary of State not presiding over an expansion and an extension of British military activity in the whole region? Is he really sure where all this will lead, what the cost will be, and what the casualties will be?

Michael Fallon: What I am sure of, first of all, is that ISIL presents a clear and present danger to us in the United Kingdom. There have been acts of violent extremism on the streets of our capital and elsewhere. This is a very direct threat and there are Britons, sadly, who have gone to fight for the jihadists. There is a direct British interest in ensuring that ISIL is not allowed to capture further territory in Iraq and is thrown back out of it. That is why we are supporting the legitimate Government of Iraq, and why we are acting at their request in considering what further training and support we are able to offer. So far as the base in Bahrain is concerned, we have ships and aircraft permanently present in the Gulf. Having a permanent base there will make deployment much easier.

Richard Benyon: One of the most important things the Defence Committee heard last week was the strong desire by Governments in the region, particularly the Government of Jordan, to “Arabise the narrative”. What more can the UK Government do to support the strong desire that this be seen as an Arab-led initiative against an evil form of extreme Islam and that we in the west—countries such as Britain, the United States and France—be seen as acting in support of those efforts?

Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The extent to which our allies in the Gulf accept that they and other regional parties have a regional responsibility to help the Government of Iraq deal with this challenge is encouraging. The recent conference in Kuwait on combating the ideology of ISIL was an important illustration of that. In the end, this has to be dealt with by the legitimate Government of Iraq, with the support of the region and the international community.

Paul Flynn: Although the humanitarian work is valued and appreciated, should we not avoid mission-creeping into a new war before we have had an explanation of why 632 British soldiers died, having been ordered into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired?

Michael Fallon: I think that everyone in the House is awaiting the well overdue publication of the Chilcot inquiry, and anything that can be done to accelerate that would be welcomed on both sides of the House. Helmand is a better place than it was when our troops went in, however, and we should pay tribute to the work done there and the sacrifices made.

Tony Baldry: We are all proud of the work done by the combined school for explosives and bomb disposal now based at Bicester. Do I understand it from my right hon. Friend’s statement that either Royal Engineer and/or Royal Logistics corps limited bomb disposal capacity will be deployed to help train Iraqi service personnel in dealing with bomb disposal and improvised explosive devices?

Michael Fallon: No decision has been taken about which units are likely to be involved or which locations they are likely to be sent to; this is simply something we are considering at the request of the Iraqi Government. As my right hon. Friend says, however, this is expertise that we have in this country, and there are lessons learned from the Afghan campaign that we think we could usefully contribute to assist the Iraqi military.

John Woodcock: I want to be clear about something the Defence Secretary just said. The House has only given permission for us to go up to the Iraqi border because it has never been asked to go beyond that. If he wants to do that, the Prime Minister should have the courage of his apparent conviction and ask the question. Will the Defence Secretary be specific about the request from the Iraqi Government? Have they made a specific request for the kind of increased ground force deployment he outlined to The Sunday Telegraph this week?

Michael Fallon: I did not outline any ground force deployment; I made it clear that we were not considering the deployment of combat forces to Iraq. I discussed the effort we might make in support of the Iraqi military with Iraqi commanders and the new Iraqi Defence Minister, Minister Obeidi, when I was last in Baghdad, and I discussed the same matter in Irbil. This is expertise that the Iraqi and Kurdish forces would certainly welcome.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Secretary of State is right to congratulate Prime Minister Abadi and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani on coming together to form the revenue-sharing and hydrocarbon deal, which will allow them to pay for some of the equipment, training and so forth. Of course there are challenges facing both—the unification of the Peshmerga and, of course, the militias that we have heard about today. There has also been talk of the formation of a Sunni national guard. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to discuss that with both parties in Kurdistan and Baghdad?

Michael Fallon: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the agreement—only an interim agreement at this stage—between the Kurdish regional authority and Baghdad about the allocation of oil revenues. I hope both sides will build on that to forge a stronger relationship. So far as the national guard is concerned, yes, I did discuss the issue in Baghdad, and I view it as essential for that national guard to be truly national, so that it does not comprise simply Shi’as, Sunnis or Kurds but is genuinely national and cuts across all the political, tribal and religious divisions.

Frank Roy: This deployment is a new worry for the families of service personnel. Can the Secretary of State provide an estimate of how long the tour of duty will be on this particular mission?

Michael Fallon: I am sorry, but I cannot make any such estimate at the moment, simply because we have not yet decided the numbers or which units will be involved. As soon as we have further details, they will of course be reported to this House.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend further update us on the support for military training and aid that our allies in the Gulf states are providing to the Iraqi Government?

Michael Fallon: A number of allies in the Gulf have already contributed equipment and have been involved in air strikes, flying in support of the coalition efforts in Syria, in particular. They are looking to see what other logistical help they can provide. A number of them provide bases and other support for the international effort.

Sammy Wilson: Given the threat presented by ISIL, I think the whole House would support any effective action. However, before we left Iraq, we trained, equipped and supported the Iraqi army, yet it crumbled in the face of the threat from ISIL. Why is the Secretary of State convinced that this intervention will be effective and will not simply drag us further into front-line involvement in this war?

Michael Fallon: We are not going to be dragged into front-line involvement, as I have made clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the previous Iraqi Government did not enjoy the full support of all parts of Iraq, which is why the army did not command the loyalty of all parts of Iraq and why it crumbled in the face of the ISIL onslaught. The new Government are, I believe, genuinely representative, comprising Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish Ministers, and the reforms we have seen so far show, I think, that the Government understand the need to be wholly inclusive of all the different elements of Iraq. It is early days and there is a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman said, in that these divisions still remain. It is up to us to help the new Government of Iraq to overcome them.

Richard Drax: Given that the only strategy to beat ISIL is probably a large ground offensive involving tens of thousands of troops, does my right hon. Friend believe that such a resolution will ever by executed by the Iraqi and Kurdish forces?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I do have confidence that ISIL can be pushed back if we are able to help re-equip and retrain the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. We have had some significant offers of support in principle from other coalition partners: the Australians are offering up to 400 personnel; the Germans about 100; the Spanish 300; the Italians 280; the Danes 120. A number of countries are coming together to offer the sort of training and support that they are each able to offer individually in overall support for those ground forces.

Debbie Abrahams: When Parliament was recalled to debate ISIS in September, many of us expressed concern about the potential for mission creep, and I am afraid that the manner of the Secretary of State’s announcement has not reassured us. He said that these activities would be undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. Who will co-ordinate them, and is it true that, as has been reported in the press, we will be based at either of the training centres in which the United States currently reside?

Michael Fallon: As the hon. Lady knows, everything that we are doing in Iraq is either at the request or with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. As for the location of any training effort, it has yet to be decided. The coalition is considering a number of sites divided between the Kurdish and southern areas and areas around Baghdad, but we have yet to finalise exactly which country is likely to offer further training where.

Andrew Stephenson: There have been reports that, in addition to those in the countries mentioned by my right hon. Friend, Iranian military advisers are playing key roles in the fight against ISIL. Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about how the efforts of such a diverse range of international military advisers are being co-ordinated on the ground?

Michael Fallon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not co-ordinating efforts with Iran, but more than 40 countries are now involved in the international coalition, a number of which have made significant training offers. We are considering—scoping—what training offer we might be able to make, in addition to those that have already been made.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State said that there was an acceptance of regional responsibility and spoke of some of the contributions that had been made, but does he categorically believe that regional partners are providing enough support on the ground in the form of kinetic activity? If not, does he envisage any circumstances in which the fairly hazy commitment that he has described today could increase?

Michael Fallon: We have made it clear that we want to see this effort underpinned by support from the regional partners, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made exactly that point during his visit to Ankara last week. All the regional parties must be involved. We have seen how ISIL has swept across the borders between Syria and Iraq, and has managed to seize a large amount of territory. I think the regional partners understand that the integrity and survival of Iraq are key to the region. We are continuing to encourage them, as I did during the Manama conference in Bahrain two weeks ago. We are encouraging them to continue to contribute, not least because we think it important for public opinion in western Europe to take account of the part that they are playing in the effort against ISIL.

Oliver Colvile: I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend shares my admiration for the Royal Marines and for what they did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is he considering using them to deliver the level of expertise and training that they have clearly demonstrated, so that they can provide the top-notch advice that I think is so desperately needed?

Michael Fallon: I much appreciated my visit last week, with my hon. Friend, to the Royal Marines in his constituency, and I am well aware of the formidable strengths and expertise that they bring to operations of this kind. I should emphasise, however, that we have not yet made any decisions about the number of personnel, or about the units from which they might be drawn.

Philip Hollobone: Are there any differences between the Secretary of State’s assessment of the training requirements of the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi Government’s own assessment of its training needs?

Michael Fallon: Broadly, no. All this is being done in close co-operation and discussion with the Iraqi Government. I had discussions with the new Iraqi Defence Minister and his officials in Baghdad, who were fairly open about gaps in their military, their capabilities and their equipment, and about the areas in which they look to the rest of the international community for assistance.

Northern Ireland (All-party Talks)

Ivan Lewis: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the talks process in Northern Ireland following the Prime Minister’s visit.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the cross-party talks which have been taking place in Stormont over the past nine weeks.
	In September the Government concluded that the time was right for a fresh round of political discussions to be convened with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government reached the same conclusion and co-ordinated statements were issued. The aim was to address some key issues which are hindering the effectiveness and credibility of devolution and the Stormont Executive. These included: welfare reform and the Executive’s budget; the so-called legacy issues of flags, parading and the past; and reform of the political institutions.
	The talks began at Stormont house on 16 October. As a signatory to the Belfast agreement, the Irish Government have been fully involved in all those matters where they too have responsibilities, consistent with the three-stranded approach, which means that the internal arrangements for Northern Ireland are a matter for the UK Government and the parties. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks for the positive and constructive role played throughout by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan TD, and his team of officials. In addition, I am very grateful for the support and wise counsel of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The US Government have also been supportive and closely engaged with this process, in particular through Secretary of State Kerry’s representative, Senator Gary Hart.
	So far, around 90 hours of the formal talks have taken place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, have been closely following the whole nine-week process and on Thursday they joined the discussions directly. They conducted an intensive round of talks with the Executive parties and I would like to thank both of them for their support, perseverance and ongoing commitment to this process. Despite their efforts, by early Friday morning they made a realistic assessment that there was still insufficient consensus across the parties for a broadly based agreement to be reached. Shortly afterwards, all five Executive parties declared their firm intention to continue to strive for a deal. They asked me and Minister Flanagan to take part in a resumption of discussions on Friday afternoon, which we duly did.
	Let me briefly set out to the House the outline of the deal put on the table on Thursday. A draft heads of agreement was tabled including, first, a fresh approach to the past which puts the needs of victims and survivors at its heart; secondly, devolved arrangements for adjudicating on parades that would see the Parades Commission replaced by a new authority; and thirdly, reforms to the institutions such as support for those
	parties that might want to form a formal Opposition within the Assembly. The draft also sought a commitment from the Executive to press ahead with welfare reform, although with a number of flexibilities to reflect Northern Ireland’s circumstances, and to implement a serious efficiency programme to make long-term savings in the cost of government. This draft heads of agreement was the result of the work of both the UK and Irish Governments, again respecting the three-stranded approach, and we believe it represents a balanced package and a sound basis for cross-party agreement.
	During the evening, the Prime Minister also set out proposals to provide further financial assistance from the UK Government. This included flexibilities which would have given the Executive nearly £1 billion of extra spending power to help them through their current difficulties and support their most important priorities. It would also allow the devolution of corporation tax to go ahead. A change which just a few years ago seemed inconceivable and undeliverable is now within the grasp of Northern Ireland’s leaders, if they choose to take it.
	The talks resume this week and the stakes are high. All parties agree that if there is no agreement before Christmas, we will not get this close again for months or even years. In particular, failure to agree a balanced budget would leave the Executive increasingly unable to conduct even ordinary day-to-day business effectively. So this week is crucial. We all have a responsibility to do whatever we can in the few days left to us.
	The UK Government have shown that they can compromise, even over hugely sensitive and difficult issues regarding Northern Ireland’s past and even when resources are constrained by the pressing need to deal with the deficit. We will continue to do all we can to deliver agreement within the financial constraints in which we are operating, but the UK and Irish Governments can do only so much. Ultimately, whether an overall agreement is reached will be down to Northern Ireland’s political leaders. They have the chance to show that, once again, they can move Northern Ireland forward towards a better future in which politics works, the economy grows and society is stronger and more united. That is the prize on offer, and I know that all the participants in the talks will have the support and good will of this House in our attempts to seize it.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Christmas is meant to be the season of good will, but for a second consecutive year in Northern Ireland there is a real risk that it will be a season of entrenched mistrust and political failure. The people of Northern Ireland want progress. They yearn for politicians who offer hope that the journey to a shared future, while not easy, is irreversible and who accept that a shared obligation and a shared commitment to a better future require compromise and mutual respect.
	Of course, the UK and Irish Governments have responsibilities too. Three years of relative disengagement by the UK Government have damaged trust and weakened mutual understanding. It also has to be recognised that Northern Ireland faces unique challenges related to the past. A properly resourced, comprehensive framework should be part of any agreement, but fairness also means that there can be no blank cheques or exemption
	from tough choices. Northern Ireland has the right not to implement aspects of Tory-Lib Dem welfare cuts, but a refusal to implement any welfare reform is neither affordable nor credible.
	I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Will she spell out how the £1 billion of extra spending power offered by the Prime Minister is broken down? Where is the money going to come from? How quickly will the loan element have to be repaid, and at what rate of interest? What is the Government’s estimate of the overall annual cost to Northern Ireland’s budget of the current instruments to deal with the past and of those envisaged under new arrangements? Finally, Prime Ministers usually attend political negotiations either to announce an agreement or to roll their sleeves up and stick around to make an agreement possible. As the Prime Minister did neither, can the Secretary of State explain the strategy underpinning his flying visit to Belfast last week? Does she expect him to engage further in the talks before Christmas?

Theresa Villiers: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his questions. I agree that people in Northern Ireland want to see progress and confirmation that their leaders are striving towards building a genuinely shared future, and that they are prepared to see their political leaders accept compromise and make difficult decisions.
	It is most emphatically not true that the UK Government have been disengaged over recent years. We have followed all these matters closely and we pressed for the establishment of the Haass talks in the first place. Also, the economic pact has seen our two Administrations in Belfast and London working more closely than ever before. The devolution of air passenger duty took place in double-quick time to save Northern Ireland’s transatlantic flights, for example, and the G8—a huge opportunity for Northern Ireland—was brought to Northern Ireland personally by the Prime Minister. I agree that, in this situation, there can be no blank cheques for the Executive. We all have to live within the constraints of the need to deal with the deficit.
	On the financial package, the Prime Minister outlined a contribution of £10 million a year towards the running of the Historical Enquiries Unit, which is proposed in the draft heads of agreement. The Government would also approve the use of Northern Ireland’s existing allocation of £200 million of the re-investment and reform initiative borrowing for 2015-16 to implement an exit scheme for the Northern Ireland public sector, to be used in that financial year. That includes the £100 million already sought by the Executive as part of their draft 2015-16 Budget. The Government would also agree that the Executive may use a further £100 million of their RRI borrowing power in each of the five subsequent years, beginning in 2016-17, for the same purpose. The Prime Minister also set out plans to support the establishment of the peace and investment fund proposed by Northern Ireland’s leaders, including allowing the Northern Ireland Executive to keep additional funds generated from asset sales in the financial year 2015-16, after the achievement of a balanced budget. I assure the shadow Secretary of State that the Prime Minister did indeed roll up his sleeves and engage in intensive negotiations, because he, like all of us here, is determined to reach a successful outcome.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her perseverance, working with the local parties on matters that we know are of intense interest and concern to them. Does she think they have really got the message that the devolution of corporation tax, bringing economic benefits which have so dramatically helped the Republic of Ireland, would be of enormous significance and would in many ways measure up to the level of the agreement years ago, and that we really are in the final hours? As I understand it, a Bill is ready to be laid, but it has to be laid this week. If the local parties blow this opportunity, they deserve to have the obloquy of future generations descend upon them—they must not fluff this opportunity.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that one of the most urgent matters at stake is the devolution of corporation tax, and the clock really is ticking on that. If we are to pass legislation within this Parliament, we need to introduce it as soon as possible, not least because the Opposition Front-Bench team has not yet been prepared to give its support to the potential devolution of corporation tax.

Peter Hain: May I offer a critical observation, not for some partisan motive, but out of experience of negotiating at such summits alongside Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister? I was both troubled and astonished that the current Prime Minister left the summit prematurely in the way that he did. My experience is that any Prime Minister has to coax and progress the discussions and negotiations, and there is a chemistry about those and a momentum that it is possible to develop. Walking away as he did leaves a kind of political paralysis which I suspect and fear may continue. That is extremely damaging and I am extremely worried about the situation.

Theresa Villiers: I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with reassurance that the Prime Minister has not walked away; he continues to follow these matters with the greatest of attention, because he cares about Northern Ireland and wishes to see a successful conclusion to this process. The reality is that both he and the Taoiseach made a realistic assessment on Friday morning that the parties were still far apart on a number of issues, and there was an indication that on some key issues some parties were simply not prepared to move. In particular, it was very difficult to see that Sinn Fein was prepared to move on matters relating to welfare reform.

Laurence Robertson: Is not one of the deeper and wider problems in Northern Ireland that fact that the Assembly and the Executive were set up in the way they were, although for the very laudable reason of bringing about peace and bringing people together? Does the Secretary of State agree that that model is not a good one for effective and efficient decision making? Is she discussing with the parties of Northern Ireland ways in which changes might be proposed by them that might move us towards a more efficient system?

Theresa Villiers: I have had those discussions at great length, including discussions about how to amend the petition of concern process. The Chairman of the Select Committee is right to acknowledge that the institutions set up to secure a peace settlement can often find it
	difficult to take difficult decisions, but they are capable of it; adaptations can be made. However, improving the way the institutions work will be an important part of an overall agreement.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Of course these matters do not just affect the Northern Ireland parties; national issues and national security issues are at stake in the discussions on the past. On parades, we are still awaiting the Secretary of State’s announcement about what she is going to do on north Belfast and the Ligoniel parade. That could unlock the way for progress being made, so it is important that the UK Government—our Government—play their part in moving things forward as well. Although I welcome what the Opposition spokesman has said, I remind him that part of the reason for the mistrust at the moment is the previous Government’s actions in relation to on-the-runs.

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the north Belfast panel will be constituted shortly. I agree that national security matters are at stake, not least because the current dispute over welfare reform and budgets means that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is facing significant funding cuts. Those cuts could impact on its ability to deliver community policing, which is an important part of our counter-terrorism strategy as a means of building support for policing within the community.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State be slightly more specific about what is holding up the talks? In particular, she mentioned Sinn Fein’s opposition to reform of welfare. She will know that Sinn Fein wishes to see the destruction of the Northern Ireland entity, which is not exactly the position that most other people take. Is it a fact that we may have to impose a solution—I am not entirely clear about how that can be done—to ensure that things move forward?

Theresa Villiers: I shall be as brief as possible. There remain significant differences of view on a number of matters. There is no sign as yet that Sinn Fein will move its position on welfare reform. Further progress is needed on a specific plan for efficiencies within the Northern Ireland Executive. On the past, issues around thematic work and inquests will be quite difficult to resolve. On parading, the discussions that took place in the summer under the party leaders’ talks indicate that the criteria for adjudicating parades and the sanctions to be attached to a code of conduct remain the main sticking points.

Paul Murphy: How on earth can the Prime Minister come to the conclusion, after 24 hours, that there is no realistic way of reaching a consensus? Over the years, both with the Good Friday agreement and the St Andrew’s agreement, the Prime Minister actively tries to ensure that there is a consensus. The Secretary of State should go to Downing street and persuade the Prime Minister to do that again—and quickly.

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government will continue to work as hard as possible to secure an agreement out of this process.

Nigel Mills: May I agree with the Secretary of State’s earlier sentiment that the solution to every problem in Northern Ireland cannot be more money from the English taxpayer? Will she now confirm that there will be no bigger offer than the £1 billion that was talked about last week to get this deal over the line?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said many times, the solution to these problems cannot be a big cheque from the UK Government. That is partly because it would not solve the problems, and partly because there is no more money. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to subsidise a more expansive welfare system for Northern Ireland. We are certainly prepared to continue to discuss the funding of matters such as new institutions on the past.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that £700 million of an existing borrowing power that we originally negotiated for strategic capital investment to be used for voluntary exit schemes does not seem to people to be new money or a big attractive offer? Is she not concerned that she has informed the House that the issue of inquests will be difficult? The two Governments propose that the families who have fought for inquests and had new inquests opened will now be told that, no, they will not now have an inquest. There is to be a new arrangement as part of the historical investigations unit that may not work in respect of the inquest and also damage the working prospects for other key aspects of the HIU’s work.

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the flexibilities offered in relation to borrowing powers would be of significant assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive in delivering the voluntary exit scheme for which they are calling. It was a significant and serious offer, but one that accepts the realities of the financial constraints we are under. I fully appreciate the difficulties concerning inquests. The Government are in listening mode, and we will continue to discuss the matter with the parties over the next couple of days. Whatever the outcome, it is vital that the cases be dealt with within a framework that is fully compliant with our obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights.

Lady Hermon: The Prime Minister’s failure to broker a deal last week caused considerable disappointment in Northern Ireland, although I have to say that I do not think it caused much surprise, since he did not stay there very long trying to bring about success. However, it is the season of good will, so could the Secretary of State provide us with some reasons to be cheerful about the likelihood of success in the near future in these talks? That would be very welcome.

Theresa Villiers: I think that the reasons to be cheerful are that all the Northern Ireland parties accept that we need to find a deal and that everyone accepts that going into the next financial year with an unresolved budget would lead to increasing chaos and make it increasingly difficult for the Executive to perform even their ordinary, day-to-day functions. No one wants that. I think everyone accepts that that would be bad for every party that is a member of the Executive. I think there is that willingness to make progress. We are relatively close on matters, for
	example on how we set up new structures to help deal with the past in a way that better meets the needs of victims and survivors.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State has said that she wants to see a fresh approach to the past. Does she realise that that will be very difficult while there is still so much secrecy about the on-the-runs? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is facing increasing difficulty in getting the ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair to give evidence for its inquiry—we have had to summons him and he has not come yet. There are people from the Northern Ireland Office whom the Secretary of State seems to want to prevent coming to speak to us. We have to get the inquiry finished and we have to get the past looked at very differently, but we need some openness and transparency from the ex-Prime Minister.

Theresa Villiers: One of the advantages of setting up new structures on the past is that it allows us to reflect upon and respond to mistakes made in the past so that whatever we set up is transparent, balanced, fair and properly accountable. I very much welcome the work that the Select Committee has done on the matter. It is for the Committee to negotiate with former Prime Minister Blair. I certainly hope he will accept the invitation to give evidence. In relation to junior civil servants, the Government’s approach is consistent with that taken by previous Governments: we do not generally put forward junior civil servants to answer in Select Committees.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is it not entirely predictable that many people in Northern Ireland, having observed the operation of the welfare cap in England and Wales, look with great trepidation at deepening poverty, increasing homelessness and all the problems that have been associated with that policy here?

Theresa Villiers: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit cap—I think that is what he means, rather than a welfare cap. The reality is that setting a cap on out-of-work benefits at £26,000 a year puts it somewhere in excess of average earnings in Northern Ireland. I think that most people would agree that it is entirely fair to restrict the benefits that an out-of-work family can receive to levels that are equivalent to or below the average that a working family can bring home by going out to work.

John McDonnell: I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the maths on this. Some £1.5 billion has been cut from the Northern Ireland budget since 2011 to assist the UK Government in reducing borrowing and tackling the deficit, yet the solution now being put forward is to ask Northern Ireland to increase its borrowing by £500 million. Is that not simply inflicting a high burden of cost on the residents of Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s figures on the Northern Ireland block grant, which has actually gone up in cash terms. In real terms there has been a reduction, but it has been around only 1% for every year of the spending review. The reality is that the Northern Ireland Executive have a larger budget now than they did when they set their programme for government, because of Barnett consequentials. Those
	figures compare favourably with policing and the Home Office, for example, which have had to take a significant cut in England, and English local government, where the reductions have also been very significant.

Naomi Long: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach for the work they did, and not just over recent weeks but in the run-up and on Thursday and Friday. Does she agree that there is a distinct difference between all parties recognising that an agreement is necessary and all parties having the will to deliver it? Does she agree that all parties recognised the need for an agreement even before Richard Haass and his team arrived 18 months ago, yet we are in practice no closer to such an agreement? Far from further devolution of corporation tax and other matters being at stake, what is actually at stake if there is no serious agreement in the next few days is the existing devolution that we have in Northern Ireland, because without a budget the Assembly simply cannot function.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that the credibility of the institutions is on the line. If the Assembly cannot get its budget right, it is very difficult for it to perform its basic functions, and it would be in for significant criticism if it cannot resolve these matters. As to the hon. Lady’s comment that the parties recognise the importance of delivery, and her question about whether they have the will to do it, I hope they do and I believe they do. Time is running out. It is crucial that we seize this opportunity because we will not get another one for months, if not years, to come.

Sammy Wilson: The main reason that the talks failed this week was Sinn Fein’s deluded belief that Northern Ireland should be totally exempt from the implications of UK budgetary policy and welfare reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm and put it on the record for those head-in-the-sand ostrich economists who advise Sinn Fein that if Northern Ireland wishes to deviate from the welfare reform package
	which is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, that money must be found from the Northern Ireland block grant and there is no additional money available?

Theresa Villiers: Yes, I can certainly do that. There will be no new money for welfare reform.

David Anderson: The leader of the Minister’s sister party in Northern Ireland said last week that the Government were trying to bribe the people with their own money. The truth is that they are trying to bribe the people to accept an agenda that the people there do not want. It is disgraceful that this involves things as important as identity and the past and the future of the place. Does this not show that because we have a Prime Minister with the attention span of a gnat, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, he has left a vacuum—the worst thing one can do in Northern Ireland—which proves that he is not up to the job?

Theresa Villiers: That is nonsense. The Prime Minister made a realistic offer. Remember, what the Prime Minister can put on the table by way of financial assistance is severely constrained by the huge mess that Labour made of the economy in the years when it was in government.

Wayne David: We all appreciate the gravity of the situation, but will the Secretary of State tell us what the Prime Minister intends to do during the next few days to break the logjam?

Theresa Villiers: We will be doing everything we can to break the logjam over the coming days. We have thrown everything we can at the process, including stretching ourselves on the past, and taking forward proposals for corporation tax devolution, despite a degree of lack of enthusiasm from our coalition partners. We are doing everything we can to do the right thing for Northern Ireland, but ultimately this process will not succeed unless Northern Ireland’s political leaders are prepared to make the compromises necessary for an agreement.

Point of Order

Nadhim Zahawi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the urgent question on Iraq, I asked a question of the Secretary of State but I did not declare my pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests, which I now put on record.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who approached me about this matter. The House appreciates what he has just said.

business of the house (today)

Ordered,
	That at today’s sitting the motion in the name of Edward Miliband relating to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 shall be proceeded with as if Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) applied to it; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England)

Hilary Benn: I beg to move,
	That the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2848), dated 23 October 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 October, be revoked.
	This is an extremely important debate—I thank the Government for providing time for it—about an issue that firefighters feel very strongly about and which has been the cause of industrial action. Ministers ought to ask themselves why that is.
	Let me begin by saying to the Minister that it was not acceptable to table a written statement this afternoon suggesting that all the concerns have been dealt when, on reading it, we discover that that is clearly not the case. Nor is it acceptable to claim, as she did in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to firefighters who cannot maintain their fitness and cannot be redeployed, when in fact her own letter to me, also of today’s date, confirms that that is not the case. She should not try to pull the wool over firefighters’ eyes. I will return to that point later on.
	This dispute is not about the need for change in this or other public sector pension schemes. We know that we are living longer and will therefore draw a pension for longer, and that means higher contribution rates and later retirement ages. Any Government have to ensure that public sector pensions are financially sustainable. Nor is this debate about challenging the cost ceiling for the regulations, because we accept that. This debate is about producing a pension scheme that is fair to firefighters and workable—something that, to date, DCLG Ministers have failed to do. Unlike the Governments in Scotland and Wales, Ministers have laid before the House regulations that are unfair to firefighters who, through no fault of their own, may have to retire between the ages of 55 and 60, and that are not based on what we would regard as a common understanding of fitness levels. I want to deal with each of those points in turn.
	The Minister knows that the scheme is not the only one possible within the cost limit. The Government Actuary has told them that, and firefighters know it too. That is why the devolved Governments have proposed lower actuarial reductions. Firefighters in England, a very large number of whom have been lobbying their Members of Parliament in recent weeks, are therefore asking this question: if a different scheme can be offered to firefighters in Scotland and in Wales, then why not in England?
	Regulation 61 of the statutory instrument deals with the penalties firefighters will face should they need to retire between the ages of 55 and 60. Under the Government’s proposals, firefighters will lose 21.8% of their pension at the age of 55, yet the Government Actuary has shown that there are two different ways of calculating that reduction: one that seems fair to firefighters, and another that is not, which is the one that the Government have chosen. This issue of the reduction is where negotiations in Scotland and Wales have made most progress. Scotland is not proposing a 21.8% reduction, as in England, but a 9% reduction, and in past weeks, Wales has also moved to consult on 9%.

Lady Hermon: I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just want to put on the record that we have a very amicable settlement with firefighters in Northern Ireland. Every time he referred to Scotland and Wales, my colleagues and I were saying that we have a very good settlement in Northern Ireland, which is why we do not have industrial action. The Government need to learn lessons from a very successful process in Northern Ireland.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Indeed, there has been no industrial action in Northern Ireland, and that is why I did not refer to the agreement that is in place.

Bob Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather difficult for people like him, me and the Secretary of State, who do not need to maintain a level of fitness in order to earn our income, to understand the very real fear among firefighters? This issue has not been put up by the Fire Brigades Union; firefighters really do fear that they are not going to be able to cope with the inevitable deterioration that age brings to strength.

Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the concerns that very many firefighters have talked to many Members of the House about. That is, in part, the nub of this issue.

Eilidh Whiteford: Although the Scottish Government have sought to find the best solution possible for firefighters in Scotland within the envelope available, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that 60 is not an appropriate age for firefighters to retire and agree that we need to revisit the question of whether that is an appropriate healthy working life expectancy?

Hilary Benn: I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because when the 2006 regulations were introduced they made provision for that retirement age. The difference and the reason that there was no industrial action in 2006 was that firefighters felt that other jobs were available for those who could not maintain operational fitness. As I shall say in a moment, those jobs do not exist anymore.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons this Government cannot reach agreement on local government pension schemes in particular is that they are vindictive towards public services in general? We should also bear in mind that this country’s fire service in general has suffered massive cuts under this Government.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend’s latter point is absolutely correct. It is very clear from this debate and the campaign that is being waged that Ministers have completely failed to win the confidence of firefighters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will give way one more time at this stage and then make some progress.

John Healey: I applaud the way in which my right hon. Friend is contesting the regulations, because Labour Members simply cannot accept them when they fail to protect the public and needlessly put firefighters at risk. The Minister told the House earlier today that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to those firefighters who, through no fault of their own, face dismissal because they cannot meet the fitness standards, but the regulations do not provide that guarantee. Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that the firefighters themselves were told by the Minister during the negotiations that that would be the case, so they have been let down directly by the regulations?

Eleanor Laing: Order. There is a limited time for this debate and a lot of people wish to speak. We must have very brief interventions.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my right hon. Friend and I shall come back to that point later.
	On the offers made in Scotland and Wales, those devolved Governments are subject to exactly the same cost ceiling, so they have adjusted their accrual rates to come up with a fairer scheme. Why does that matter? It matters because firefighting demands certain standards of physical fitness, yet some firefighters reaching the age of 55 will, after decades of service and through no fault of their own, find they are unable to continue because they cannot meet the fitness requirements.

Brian H Donohoe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: May I make some more progress, if my hon. Friend will bear with me?
	The FBU has proposed a fairer scheme, accepting that the accrual rate will need to be adjusted. In other words, firefighters will accept less pension if the Government will accept a smaller actuarial reduction for those forced to retire early. Indeed, an e-mail to the Department in January from the Government’s own deputy chief actuary reported back on the calculation of active early retirement factors from age 55. It confirmed that Ministers could indeed propose a scheme with a 12.8% reduction at age 55—rather than the proposed 21.8%—and calculated the exact accrual rate to ensure that the Treasury bears no extra cost. In other words, Ministers could reduce the actuarial reduction if they wanted to. Instead, they have laid regulations before the House that will leave those retiring at 55 facing the loss of more than a fifth of their pension. How is that fair?
	That is the first problem with the regulations, and I now wish to turn to the second problem. The concern that many firefighters have expressed about having to take early retirement with a reduced pension would not be so great if there were other, non-front-line jobs in the fire service that firefighters over the age of 55 could be redeployed to for the rest of their career. The Minister talked about such jobs earlier. That used to be the case, but, as has been pointed out, reductions in funding for the fire service mean that there are far fewer of those jobs.
	The Government commissioned Dr Tony Williams to conduct a review of the normal pension age for firefighters and to consider the associated fitness issues. This is the second relevant matter to this debate. Dr Williams published his report in January 2013, but I do not think
	that Ministers have taken proper account of what he had to say. There is not currently a nationally agreed fitness standard across the 46 fire and rescue authorities in England. Dr Williams says there should be one, and so do the chief fire officers. There is a very strong case for it, but the Government’s position has been that individual fire and rescue authorities should determine their own appropriate standard. In England, many use an aerobic fitness test, among others, that measures a firefighter's maximum oxygen intake with each breath, the so-called VO2 max measurement. The Williams review stated:
	“The general standard used by many FRSs is a minimum fitness level of 42…while some have an ‘at risk’ standard of 35…where firefighters are allowed to continue on operational duties for a limited period while they undergo remedial fitness training.”
	The Government, however, claim that firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness until the age of 60 based on the following line in the report:
	“a 35…VO2 max would ensure that 100% of firefighters who remain physically active will still be operational at age 60 assuming they remain free from injury and disease.”

Brian H Donohoe: One of the most important aspects is the safety of the public. If a 60-year-old comes to my house and he is unfit, I am not sure that I want him to deal with a fire.

Hilary Benn: That is the concern of everyone in the House. The most important thing is that firefighters should be fit to do the task they are asked to undertake and that they volunteer to do on behalf of society, and I am coming to that point.
	We have two different potential measures of fitness, one of 42 and another of 35. Why does that matter? Dr Williams adopted a VO2 max of 42 as the benchmark for his recommendations because fitness levels are not academic. It is a question of safety. He said:
	“Studies show that below an aerobic fitness standard of 42…the risk of sudden catastrophic cardiac events increases, and below the level of 35…the increase is significant”.
	More recently, an interim report, produced by the university of Bath in March and entitled “Enhancing the Health, Fitness and Performance of UK Firefighters”, identified that
	“firefighters with an aerobic capacity below an occupational fitness standard of 42.3…would not be guaranteed to be safe and effective in their ability to complete necessary roles within their occupation…the lower VO2 max standard of 35…for continuation of work with remedial training amongst operational firefighters is potentially unsafe for the majority of firefighters.”
	The House is owed an explanation from Ministers. What do they have to say about that? I hope that the House will now understand why concern has been expressed about the question of fitness standards.

Barbara Keeley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: I will give way, but then I am going to make progress.

Barbara Keeley: Will my right hon. Friend come on to the issue of women firefighters, many of whom are fearful of being driven out? On the one hand, we are
	trying to get more women firefighters and on the other they are terrified of being driven out by these fitness standards.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and if she bears with me for just a moment I shall come directly to her point.
	This is the central problem with the regulations: Ministers appear to have based all their assumptions for the pension scheme on the 35 VO2 max measure. They assume that all firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness when they cannot even tell us what the fitness standard will be and when their own assumption of a fitness standard would put the safety of firefighters and the public at risk, which is what the Williams report and the report from the university of Bath say.
	Dr Williams also states that many of the fire and rescue authorities, understanding the importance of the VO2 max standard, insist on a standard of 42 for operational fitness. Furthermore, Dr Williams found that in the best case assumption, if the 42 standard were used, as opposed to the 35 standard,
	“the age related decline in VO2 max”—
	due to the natural ageing process—
	“would indicate that 15% of firefighters would be unfit for duty at 55 years, increasing to 23% at 60 years of age”.
	As for women firefighters, Dr Williams said this:
	“more women are likely to drop below the required aerobic fitness standard as they age.”
	Those figures amount to a lot of firefighters, yet the Government have failed to respond properly to the Williams review. In fairness to the Minister, she has set up a working party to consider fitness standards, but we do not know what that working party will recommend. Given that many fire and rescue authorities have a fitness standard of 42, is she going to tell the House that she thinks it will recommend a lower fitness standard than that which is currently applied by many fire and rescue authorities?

Chris Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hilary Benn: Since it is my hon. Friend, I will go against what I just said and give way.

Chris Williamson: I am interested in the point that my right hon. Friend is making about the lower fitness standard. Is he as incredulous as I am at the Minister saying that the Government are implementing the Williams review, when that review said that the lower aerobic fitness standard ran the risk of
	“sudden death particularly while undergoing high levels of physical exertion”?
	Is it not a disgrace and a stain on Government Members that they are prepared to put firefighters at risk of being killed while on active service?

Hilary Benn: The advice that has been given to Ministers by Dr Williams should be taken seriously, including that on the safety of firefighters, because the safety of firefighters impacts on the safety of the work that they do on behalf of members of the public in fighting fires. If a lower figure is recommended by the working party, the Minister will have a big problem, because Dr Williams has told her clearly that a number of firefighters will not be able to maintain their fitness up to the age of 60.
	There is another problem.

Peter Bone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: Time is very short and I want to bring my remarks to a close.
	While claiming that firefighters will be able to maintain their fitness, the Minister has simultaneously reassured the House that there will be redeployment opportunities. However, she has provided no evidence of that being the case. At oral questions on 10 November, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) asked:
	“Given that the Minister has recognised that there remain severe reservations about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the fire service to accommodate them?”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1165.]
	The answer from the Minister was, “Yes.” If firefighters believed that answer, there would not be a problem, but they do not. The reason is that the Minister has been completely unable to explain to the House how she intends to ensure—that is an important word—that firefighters who find themselves in that position will not be dismissed. Indeed, when I asked the Minister last week in a written parliamentary question
	“how many redeployment opportunities there are within the Fire and Rescue Service to accommodate firefighters who are unable to maintain an operational fitness standard”,
	she replied:
	“We do not keep data on redeployment opportunities for firefighters.”
	If the Department has no data, the Minister does not know, so how exactly can she make the promise that she has made? Where will the jobs suddenly come from?
	The Minister then tries to rely on the Government’s promise to put fitness principles on a statutory footing, but there is a problem with that, too. The national framework is only guidance and cannot be binding because section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Act 2004 requires only that fire and rescue services “have regard” to the advice. In case there is any doubt, the Local Government Association employers said in response to the consultation:
	“Whilst an FRA would of course have to be mindful of the content of the Framework it would not be compelled to comply with it”.
	If fire and rescue authorities cannot be compelled to do so, where is the guarantee?
	The alternative would be to pay an unreduced pension. My final question is where the Government’s guarantee is on that. I have here today’s written ministerial statement, which I have read carefully. Where is the guarantee? There is not one. I also have here the letter that the Minister wrote to me today, in which she says:
	“The Framework also reminds fire and rescue authorities of the fact that they have the opportunity to retire firefighters over 55 on an unreduced pension if they so wish.”
	That is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee.

Alan Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I am going to finish my remarks.
	If we follow the Government’s logic, either the regulations are based on a flawed assumption about VO2 max levels or an additional burden will be placed on fire and rescue authorities at a difficult time. The truth is that the Government have put the pension regulations cart ahead of the fitness horse.
	To conclude, the regulations are unfit because Ministers have drawn them up based on the flawed claim that all firefighters can maintain their fitness—it is flawed because Ministers cannot tell us what the fitness standard is and because their assumption on fitness is not safe. The Government claim that they will be able to maintain operational fitness standards for firefighters, and they try to offer reassurances that anyone who falls below those standards will be redeployed, even though by her own admission the Minister cannot say how many redeployment opportunities there are. They have failed to come forward with fairer early retirement actuarial reductions, despite the Government Actuary costing the alternative within the same financial constraints. Ministers have claimed that there is a guarantee that firefighters who cannot be redeployed and cannot maintain their fitness will get an unreduced pension, but the documents before the House today show that there is no such guarantee.
	For all those reasons, we cannot support the regulations. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have signed the early-day motion, know that the regulations are not fit for purpose, and I urge the House to revoke them so that Ministers can come back with something that will actually work and is fair to England’s firefighters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and limited time is available. I will not put a formal time limit on speeches as yet, but let us see whether Members will keep their remarks to less than five minutes out of courtesy to colleagues. That does not apply, of course, to the Minister.

Penny Mordaunt: I can see that it will be up to me to recalibrate the debate —both the issues, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has been telling only half the story, and the tone. The Opposition have come to the House in anger to ask for the revocation of a pension scheme that improves considerably on their 2006 scheme, through a debate that they nearly did not call for—they did so only when there was no possibility of its being held before the regulations became law. Hon. Members and firefighters will draw their own conclusions about why that was the case.
	The Opposition have proposed no alternative, let alone said how they would pay for it. They have not responded to the consultations, including the latest one on fitness. Protections will be introduced for firefighters, including those in the 2006 scheme who already work until 60.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady says that the Opposition have not provided an alternative, but my right hon. Friend the Member for
	Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has pointed out that alternatives have been found in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, so alternatives do exist.

Penny Mordaunt: No, the House should be clear that no alternative scheme is available. If the regulations were revoked, a new scheme would have to be designed and consulted on and then introduced in April, and there is very little time to do that. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister must be heard. We have a short time for this debate, and Members must not waste time by jeering and laughing.

Penny Mordaunt: To refute the Opposition’s position is a straightforward job, but it is not the one I will focus on this afternoon. The fire service has had three years of wrangling over the arrangements, and there have been many changes to the scheme since it was originally proposed. Firefighters still have concerns, and we should remember that this is their debate. Many have taken the time to lobby Members and to write to me and meet me, and we owe it to them to focus on the outstanding issues, the facts of the matter and their concerns for the future. This is an opportunity to air their worries and their suggestions as to what should be done.
	I thank all hon. Members who have put in to speak, raised their views with me or approached me with genuine concerns and in search of solutions. I am here to listen, and I will do all I can to address those concerns and provide reassurances, either today in the House or in the future. Let this debate be of the calibre that firefighters deserve, and let us remember that loose talk has potentially damaging consequences for those in the scheme, if they believe it. Many firefighters will be making financial decisions about their families’ future based on the messages that they take away from today’s debate. Let us remember that what we do today has far-reaching consequences.

Helen Jones: When the Minister has finished lecturing the House, will she kindly tell us why, if there is no alternative to what she proposes, the dispute has been settled in various parts of the United Kingdom, within the same financial envelope? Why can she not even say how much this unnecessary dispute is costing the public?

Jake Berry: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

Jake Berry: Let me return to the pertinent point—today’s debate is important and members of the fire service who are in the Gallery will want to hear it. I visited Rossendale Rawtenstall fire station and had a meeting with the Fire Brigades Union. Its two main areas of concern are, first, someone’s ability to be redeployed in the service at a similar level of pay and pension contribution if they fail the fitness test; and, secondly, some members of the fire service are disproportionately affected by having 20 years of service but not being 45 at the date specified. Will the Minister provide further assurances?

Penny Mordaunt: I will. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) is not correct in what she says, and the other nations have not settled. I will cover the points raised by my hon. Friend in my speech.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: Let me make a little progress and then I will give way. Our goal has been to create a pension scheme that is sustainable and fair to firefighters and the taxpayer. The need to reform public service pension schemes is well established and not in dispute, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central noted. People are living longer, and the average 60-year-old now lives 10 years longer than in the 1970s. The cost of public service pensions has increased in real terms by about a third over the last 10 years, and the most recent fiscal projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the gross cost of public service pensions is set to exceed £40 billion in the coming years.
	Firefighters are not immune to those longevity increases, and the average firefighter retiring aged 50 today after a 30-year career is expected to live and draw a pension for 37 years in retirement. It should come as no surprise to any Member of this House that a pension scheme in which the average member spends 25% more time in retirement than in employment is not sustainable. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] I will take interventions, but I want to make some progress. That is why one of this Government’s first acts was to ask Lord Hutton to chair the independent public service pensions commission and undertake a fundamental review of the structure of public service pension provision. Lord Hutton was clear in his report that the status quo was not tenable, and he proposed that a normal pension age for firefighters should be set at 60—[Interruption.]

Lady Hermon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to make a point of order, but as the Minister is not prepared to give way I would like to correct the record. There is no industrial dispute with firefighters in Northern Ireland, and I would like the Minister to produce evidence that there is.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a contribution to the debate, and I am sure that the Minister will put her view or correct the record if she wishes in due course. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House will be quiet and allow the Minister to speak. There has been quite enough.

Penny Mordaunt: The retirement age of 60 was introduced in the new firefighters pension scheme 2006—a scheme that the shadow fire Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), helped to introduce as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister, and the same age that Lord Hutton said should apply to members of the armed forces and the police. It is, however, well below the retirement age set for most public sector workers, recognising the unique nature of the occupation. Lord Hutton also proposed actuarially fair early retirement terms, and that pensions should be calculated on a career average arrangement. He found that the firefighters pension scheme 1992 is the most expensive public service pension scheme, at 37.5% of pensionable pay. Currently, for every £1 a firefighter pays into the scheme, the taxpayer pays an extra £5.

David Lammy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I will make some progress.
	In 2008-09 the taxpayer topped up the firefighters pension fund with £260 million, just to meet that year’s expenditure. In 2012-13, the top-up was £370 million. The top-up is forecast to rise to nearly £600 million by 2018-19, an increase of £340 million over 10 years. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would agree that it is not fair to expect taxpayers to meet all the increased costs—

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Mr Lammy, the Minister is not giving way.

Penny Mordaunt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take interventions, but I want to make some progress.
	Those costs are being met by taxpayers, many of whom have no expectation of enjoying such a generous pension. That is why we ask firefighters, like other public servants, to pay more towards their pensions and rebalance the cost to the taxpayer. There have been three years of negotiations and many changes to the scheme. The notion that there has not is plainly untrue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I will turn to the issues of contention, but I will take interventions.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the Minister. Does she accept that one of the most serious incidents in the past few years that we asked firefighters to deal with were the riots that went on for four days? Does she accept that the taxpayer wants firefighters who are fit? Does she accept that 60 is too old, and that a fitness test they cannot meet causes huge concern in constituencies such as mine?

Penny Mordaunt: I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

Nadhim Zahawi: Labour is pretending to be outraged. Will my hon. Friend confirm that firefighters retiring at the age of 55 under the new scheme will see a significantly smaller reduction in their pension compared with the scheme introduced by Labour in 2006? Enough of this false outrage: let us talk about the substantive issue.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I will come on to the point on fitness shortly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I will make some progress.

Clive Betts: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that, when an intervention is taken, the speaker addresses that intervention and answers it before taking another intervention?

Eleanor Laing: That is not a point of order. The Member who has the floor can answer interventions as he or she wishes. [Interruption.] Order. We will have order in this House. This is a serious debate, not a matter for squabble. Now stop the noise.

Penny Mordaunt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know many Members wish to speak and make interventions. I am trying to take as many interventions as I can, but if people want me to take fewer I will consider that.
	The Opposition and the FBU have two main issues: working until 60, and the impact that that might have on a firefighter’s ability to have a full career and, consequentially, a full pension in the service. I have already mentioned that the normal pension age for firefighters has been 60 since 2006. That was introduced by a Labour Administration. It is the same age for members of the armed forces and the police under the reforms. More than a third of firefighters currently in the service are members of the 2006 scheme and have the expectation that they would retire at 60. A natural consequence of the 2006 scheme is that all firefighters would, in due course, have a normal pension age of 60 without any further action by the Government. No strike was called in 2006, and nothing was done by the previous Administration—nor by the national joint council, which is made up of the employers and the FBU to oversee firefighters’ terms and conditions—to ensure that firefighters would get the support needed to work until 60. It is clear that this was not a particular area of concern to either the previous Government or the FBU in 2006, but it appears that it has become one now. I want all firefighters, whichever scheme they are on, to be confident that they will be able to work until their normal pension age and achieve a full pension.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I am going to finish this point.
	Older workers are vital to the fire service. They have technical knowledge and expertise, and a great knowledge of, and contacts in, their local communities. In contrast to the image of them as clapped out and not up to it, they are invaluable to the service. I want them to remain part of it. It is clear we need to address those concerns to assure people in the service that they will be taken care of if they cannot maintain their fitness and to give younger workers the understanding that they can have a full career in the service.

Andrew Percy: I thank the Minister for giving way and for reminding us that the last Government raised the age to 60. Firefighters repeatedly ask me and want assurances about what other roles will be available for them at 55. Will she provide as much reassurance as possible on that issue, about which I and many of my hon. Friends have concerns?

Penny Mordaunt: On that point—seeing as I have been asked to answer interventions immediately—I have expanded the terms of reference of the fitness working group to consider those work force management issues, but I shall give further details about that later.
	The issue of fitness has been of personal interest to me. It is likely to be of particular concern to women in the fire service and is the most recent issue we have addressed in the changes we have made. Hon. Members will know that we have set up a working group on firefighter fitness to set out what good practice looks like and to explore the future shape of the work force, and we have consulted on putting principles in the national framework on a statutory footing to introduce protections for older workers. The consultation closed on 9 December. I tabled a written ministerial statement today, along with the proposed amendments to the framework, and we are making the necessary statutory instrument to bring it into force.
	These principles were designed with the intention of ensuring that no firefighter aged 55 or over was dismissed purely as a result of losing fitness through no fault of their own. If a firefighter loses health, either physical or mental, they will be eligible for ill-health retirement, and under the final regulations these will be better than the union’s alternative scheme design for “active factors”. If they lose fitness, they must be given the opportunity and support to regain it. If they cannot, again through no fault of their own, they will be offered an alternative role or an unreduced pension. DCLG will audit compliance among fire and rescue services.
	I come now to the key point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. The union has argued that the framework is simply guidance that can be ignored, and it has cited legal advice it has received on that point, but that advice is flawed. The national framework is not simply guidance; it is a statutory instrument, and under section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 fire and rescue authorities must have regard to it in the exercise of their functions.
	To ensure that the fitness principles are being implemented effectively by fire and rescue authorities, I have included in my proposals a review after three years. The union claims this is the wrong kind of regulation—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I will make some progress because this is a central point.
	The union wants another kind of regulation—at this time in the pension scheme. I have explained to the union that the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 does not provide the power to put fitness or wider employment issues in the pension scheme. Without a single service, as there is in Scotland, there is no single fitness policy to refer to.

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend is seeking to offer a guarantee to firefighters in the position she describes, but what would happen if, once this is implemented, a particular fire authority did not give that level of support to firefighters found to be unfit and did not implement the guidance she describes?

Penny Mordaunt: As well as putting the framework on a statutory footing, my Department will be auditing compliance. A small group of people might benefit from the protections, but many more will be thinking about their future in the service, and we need to make it
	clear, through the fitness group’s work on good practice and by putting the framework on a statutory footing and providing accompanying advice, that we expect fire and rescue authorities to do this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I will make a little more progress.
	Despite what the union claims, it remains the case that under the regulation agreed in Scotland, it is for the employer to consider providing an unreduced pension to a firefighter who loses their fitness. In those cases, they will have to make a judgment about whether there are “mitigating circumstances” that mean an unreduced pension should be paid. That is the same judgment that English fire and rescue authorities will make. The only difference is that, south of the border, decisions will have to be made having full regard to the fitness principles this Government have set out in the national framework—and the fitness working group will identify good practice to help fire and rescue authorities in that task.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: There will, of course, be a few firefighters who cannot maintain operational fitness. In such instances, the fire and rescue authority will assess why that might be the case. If a firefighter cannot maintain operational fitness for a medical reason—it could be due to a deterioration in the joints, for instance—and that reason is permanent, they will be considered for ill-health retirement and payment of their unreduced pension. Where there is no medical reason or the reason is not permanent, Dr Williams found that the fire and rescue authorities provide remedial training and that the great majority of firefighters are able to increase their fitness levels within a few months. So we are talking about a small group of people, but it is worth remembering, as I said, that many more firefighters who may never find themselves losing capability will be reassured by the fact that those protections are in place. Those protections will encourage people to stay in the service and in the pension scheme.
	As well as the work of the fitness working group, much else is happening to improve the support and focus on fitness and well-being. Funds have been made available from the recent LIBOR fines to help firefighters who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. This is a diagnosable medical condition, so, depending on severity, individuals would be eligible for ill-health retirement and payment of an unreduced pension.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: The issue of mental health is rightly being given considerable focus with an additional £4 million of the LIBOR funds being made available to Mind, the mental health charity. In the remainder of this Parliament, I will be working with women’s groups in the fire service to examine what further we can do to promote good practice on issues of direct concern to them, and I would like to place on record my thanks for the time they have already taken to meet me.
	It of course remains the case that some firefighters may choose to leave the service before age 60, and the scheme facilitates that by allowing firefighters to retire
	early on a cost-neutral basis and, as Lord Hutton recommended, with an actuarially fair reduction to reflect the longer time the pension is likely to be paid.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister explain which firefighters will be affected? Surely there must be a 10-year protection for existing firefighters at a certain age. What sort of protection will be provided; when is it going to kick in; when will this first affect firefighters?

Penny Mordaunt: We have chosen to protect those who are closest to their retirement age—everyone within 10 years of that age.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: I am going to make some progress because I do not have a lot of time left.
	Let me return to the issue of active factors, about which I was asked earlier. Active factors present a very uncertain early retirement calculation, as they will be very sensitive to short-term changes in inflation and earnings growth. For instance, the Government Actuary’s Department has calculated that using the actual earnings and inflation figures between September 2008 and September 2012 to set the factors would result in an early retirement reduction of about 27% at age 55 under active factors. This compares with the early retirement reduction of 21.8% under the 2015 scheme regulations—a massive improvement, of course, and almost half of what the 2006 scheme introduced. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister is not giving way. Members must allow her—[Interruption.] Order. The House must allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

Penny Mordaunt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Given that time is short, I am going to turn to the issue of redeployment opportunities, which many Members raised. Let me be frank that the availability of other redeployment opportunities is a matter for the employers, but the situation today cannot be compared with what may be the case in 2022, just as it cannot be compared with the roles that applied a decade ago when fire and rescue services were responding to twice as many incidents. Increasingly, firefighters are doing different jobs, working more closely with their communities to prevent fire or developing more specialist rescue capabilities.
	What I can say is that if firefighters are prepared to extend their roles away from those prescribed in the national joint council conditions of service—the “grey book”— more alternative roles may be possible. That in turn may allow the service to develop a more diverse work force that will benefit from the experience and skills of older workers, more women, and members of other communities who remain under-represented. I think that would be a good thing.

Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend give way, on that point?

Penny Mordaunt: Bear with me.
	The fire and rescue service faces a time of change as it responds to the changing needs and priorities of the communities it serves. If it is to reach its full potential, we need its firefighters to focus on that goal and not to be distracted by industrial action, divisive negativity, scaremongering, and poor employer practice. They deserve better: they deserve better than the 2006 scheme. The new scheme provides substantially better early and flexible retirement terms, focuses more on good practice in fitness, and pays more regard to supporting a more diverse work force, and women in particular.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Penny Mordaunt: No. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say.
	The regulations that I have laid are fit for purpose, and follow the recommendations of both Lord Hutton and Tony Williams. They are enhanced by the changes in the national framework for fire and rescue for England, and underpinned by the working group facilitated by the chief fire and rescue adviser.
	I understand that firefighters may not want to work longer than they planned to, but, although I have ensured that those who are closest to their normal retirement age will be fully protected and will experience no change, not all of them can be immune to public service reforms that are affecting every other public service work force. The firefighters pension schemes have been reformed according to exactly the same principles as other public service pension schemes, and the 2015 firefighters scheme will remain one of the best.
	Members will be aware that if the regulations—which follow three years of negotiations—fall today, no scheme will be in place after March 2015. The existing schemes will be closed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 on 13 March 2015, and if a new scheme and transitional protections for the old schemes are not put in place shortly, firefighters will not have access to a pension scheme from 1 April 2015, and those who have protections will have lost them.
	Members will be able to express their thoughts about what action should be taken in future years, but, for all the reasons that I have given, it is vital that these regulations stand.

Kate Hoey: I would normally want to say that the Minister had said something with which I agreed, but I have to say now that never in my time in the House have I heard a Minister try to flannel in this way by simply reading a speech without taking interventions even from her own side. I know that that has sent firefighters, and the public in general, the message that the Government are split on this issue. Many Back Benchers who are present today would vote with us if they were not on a three-line whip. I hope that many of them will see that this is the one occasion on which they might decide that it is worth rebelling, because the issue is really important.
	As one who has been involved with the Fire Brigades Union for many years, I feel that the union has a very fair case. This is not really about money. We have seen the settlement in Scotland, the settlement in Wales and the settlement in Northern Ireland, all of which have
	involved the same financial costs. Something very strange has happened. The union was negotiating fairly, with honesty and decency, and tried to secure a settlement for months. When a new Minister arrived, the Minister and the union met time after time. I could quote plenty of things that the Minister said that suggested that movement was going to happen, but I will not do so, because I know that many of my colleagues want to speak. Suddenly, in October, everything stopped. I do not necessarily blame the Minister, because I know that Ministers cannot always do what they would like to do, but someone, somewhere, prevented the negotiations from continuing.
	Common sense could have sorted out an issue that is vitally important to the public. We can all sleep easy in our beds at night because we know that the firefighters are out there ready to protect us. We have seen what they have done when there have been terrible tragedies in this country. We saw it, for instance, when a helicopter crashed in my constituency recently. I simply do not understand how, in this day and age, when every other part of the United Kingdom has been able to secure a settlement that is fair and within the cost constraints, we cannot have the same here today.
	So I say to all Members that it is wrong that this should have had to happen. The Opposition brought it, but the Government should have brought this and allowed this regulation to be voted on. I understand that many Government Members will not want to rebel and will feel they have to be loyal, but I say this to them: “This is a matter where you really should examine your conscience. Go and talk to your firefighters in your area. Listen to them, and they will be telling you today, ‘These regulations could be revoked. We could go back and get a settlement long in time, and get it in place before 1 April’”. I hope all Members of all parties will join together to support the FBU, and to publicly support the firefighters and the public in what they want to see: a decent deal for firefighters.

Nadine Dorries: I want to make one point before I begin my very brief speech: if we ever needed a case illustrating why there should be English votes for English MPs, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has made it throughout this debate. This has nothing to do with firefighters in Scotland, and I fail to see why the hon. Gentleman constantly tried to derail the Minister.
	However, it is important in this debate that we realise the role that firefighters play. We have not had a 9/11 in this country, but if we ever did, we would be aware, as would the general public, of the worth of our firefighters. I make that point to begin with because some of the representations I have heard are, “Firefighters are now fitting smoke alarms, talking to children in schools, and not fighting as many fires as they used to.” I want a firefighting force that is ready and able to do a job should it need to be done—should a catastrophe, God forbid, ever hit our country.
	I am delighted to hear that the Minister is talking to women’s groups, but I ask her to clarify whether the female firefighters she is talking to are members of the
	fire authority or have been put forward by the fire authority, or are they women who are actually serving on the front line? There is a world of difference between the local fire authorities and the firefighters who have their feet on the ground and carry the equipment. I am a woman, and I have been to my fire station, Ampthill, and I could not pick up the equipment. I am not unfit, but I could never in a million years even lift that equipment. I am 57, and I realise that my fitness has deteriorated to a degree, which I have had no control over. I would like to know what those women on the front line feel they are actually able to deal with and work with.
	The lives and futures of many firefighters and their families and children depend on this settlement and they deserve better representation than they have had. Some of the aggressive rhetoric, dialogue and language I have been subjected to on Twitter—and I support the firefighters —has not been helpful to their cause. It has certainly not been helpful when trying to get other MPs to support them. That aggression and language does not help at all.
	I also ask the Minister to respond to the following point for me. I know that it is the fire authority that decides what the levels of fitness should be and who takes responsibility, but in my experience too many members of the local fire authority do not even know about the job of firefighting. They do not consult active firefighters and they do not even visit local fire stations, so I have no idea how they can understand the role—what is expected of firefighters and their changing role. When the Minister and her working party are looking at the fitness assessments and how they are applied, will she consider looking at the possibility of local firefighters working in local stations becoming part of the process, rather than having a top-down process whereby fire authorities dictate to their work force?
	We have the cost-neutral alternative in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister tell us why it works there and is not considered here? I know those countries have probably less than half the number of firefighters in the UK. A lot of people have already asked about this, so could the Minister give us more information? If the scheme is working in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, why is it not applicable to the UK? What can we do to make it applicable to the UK?
	I believe that the Minister has good intentions, and I understand that not everything is within her power, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has just said. I know, and the firefighters know, that she is doing her best. They also know that the age of 60 was brought in by the previous Administration, who also ducked bringing in the reforms that were necessary because of the changing demographics, which came in like a train. Labour Members chose not to address that issue, so their faux outrage just does not carry water—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady is about to conclude.

Nadine Dorries: I am, and I would like to conclude by saying that if the Minister could answer my questions, I and my firefighters in Bedfordshire would be very grateful.

David Anderson: Let us try and get to some of the facts. The people who did the medical assessments said quite clearly that almost none of the women assessed would be able to work after the age of 55, and that 90% of the men would be unable to work after that age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made that point earlier, but it was not mentioned at all by the Minister when she was asked what she was going to do. She said nothing about reducing the figure from 42 to 35, but to do so would be a classic way of getting round the wrong that would be done by getting unfit people to do work that should be done by fit people.
	We have an agreement in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but we will have no agreement in this country unless people agree to go without 22% of their pension. The figure in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is only 9%, and the unions agreed to that after proper negotiations, but those on the Tory Front Bench clearly do not want such an agreement in this country. People are also talking as though the contributions come from nowhere, but the people who are paying into their pensions are paying at least £4,000 a year. They are paying 14% of their wages. They are paying £61 a month more now than they were three years ago, despite the fact that they have not had a decent pay rise in the past four years.
	We have been here before, in the early 1980s and the 1990s when we were dealing with cuts in local government and thousands of people went out of the back door on ill-health retirement as a way of ameliorating the effects of redundancies. The difference then was that the money was there to do it. It is clear that the squeeze on councils and fire authorities today will not allow people to be able to go in that way. The Government keep talking about redeployment opportunities. I would love the Minister to explain all this to the fire service in Tyne and Wear, where we are facing a 35% budget cut. The part of the service laughingly known as the back-room chunk of that represents 17% of the budget. We are going to have to find twice as much money as those back-room costs, which is ludicrous.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is describing cuts that are very similar to those being implemented across Merseyside and all the metropolitan boroughs. One of the many questions that the Minister failed to answer is: where are these non-operational, back-room jobs for firefighters to go into if they do not pass the fitness test?

David Anderson: Exactly. When the former fire Minister, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, was asked by the Tyne and Wear fire chief how he was supposed to implement the changes, he was told to “get on and manage it”. There has been cut after cut after cut.

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Anderson: No, I must finish my speech.
	I will make one last point. In the past few weeks, 24 million households in this country have had a tax receipt showing a breakdown of exactly where in the public sector their taxes have been spent. I ask the Government
	to do something more tonight. After the vote, I want them to send out to those 24 million households a copy of today’s
	Hansard
	, so that, somewhere down the line, if one of those firefighters up in the Public Gallery dies when they should not have been tackling a fire, or if one of our constituents dies while being rescued by someone who should not have been doing the job, people will know who to point the finger at.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I tried to make the time limits on speeches voluntary but it is not really working, so we shall have to have a time limit of three minutes if everyone is to have a chance to get in.

Alan Beith: The time available does not allow me to spend time discussing the value we attach to the fire service or the issues that arise because the previous Government introduced the age limit of 60, but there is a central issue—

Grahame Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Alan Beith: No, in my three minutes I am going to make an important point—there is a central point to make. The Minister’s written statement today states:
	“These principles…will ensure that no firefighter faces a situation where they are forced to retire without access to a fair pension where they lose fitness through no fault of their own.
	I do not doubt her sincerity in asserting that that is what she believes should happen, but what I am still doubtful about, and what I still want to hear more about, is how we ensure that it does happen and that if a particular fire authority does not apply those principles, some action is taken to protect the individual affected. I envisage a situation in which one or two fire authorities do not carry out the letter or the spirit of this framework and I want to know what happens to the individuals in those cases. When people are as close as I am to Scotland—at the border—they look over that border, and firefighters see clearer, firmer protection on the other side. So I would like the Minister to give me clearer assurance as to how she ensures this happens. Merely stating that the framework is part of a statutory framework does not tell me how I can be sure that that firefighter can be protected.
	Other firefighters are also affected adversely even if we sort that issue out. For example, a man who has served for 32 years and who had hoped to retire at 50 —he is under the previous scheme—will not now be able to do so. There are also people who will be worse off if the kind of changes that have been proposed are made, for example to assist those retiring at 55, 56 or 57 with a 12% rather than a 22% reduction. But members of the FBU have accepted that it might be reasonable to help that particular group. My primary concern is for the firefighters who, given a lack of non-operational jobs, find they are losing their job and do not know how to enforce what the Minister has said tonight.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). This is a simple issue but it has been complicated by today’s written ministerial statement. I do not have a declarable interest, but I should point out that, as a former firefighter, I was a member of the firemen’s pension scheme and I served with the London fire brigade from 1974 to 1997.
	Various comments have been made about the “generosity” of the firefighters pension scheme, but I have to point out to the Minister that the contributions to the scheme were hiked in the late ‘70s to 11% for firefighters to cover for partners and children who were being left because firefighters were being killed and kids were being orphaned. The second point to make is that the previous rules the Minister keeps referring to, requiring compulsory retirement at 55 or after 30 years’ service, were changed to allow and then to require firefighters to stay to 60. That was done on the basis of alternative jobs or an appropriate pension for those not making the standard.
	Two points are important to note. First, firefighters now pay 14.2% towards their pension, so this is not a cheap scheme. Secondly, and crucially, the alternative employment is not there. That is due partly to general reductions in public expenditure, because of austerity, and partly to the success of the service in helping to reduce the number of fires, which, alongside safer buildings, smoke detectors, sprinklers, fewer smokers, legislation and so on, has led to smaller fire brigades. The alternative jobs just do not exist. So that is the first problem for the Government.
	The second problem is on the fitness and health question. The Government commissioned Dr Tony Williams to make an assessment and he said that two thirds might not be able to make the cut. The Minister challenged that, but we need more information on how that could possibly be the case. Under these rules, firefighters, through no fault of their own, risk losing a large amount of their pension that not only have they worked and paid for, but most of us would say they are entitled to expect.

Stephen McCabe: I come back to the point about two thirds of firefighters not making the cut. If we have a proposal here that two thirds of them are going to lose up to a quarter of their pension, is there anybody with a fair mind who would think that is okay?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely appropriate point. Of course firefighters are not perfect, and no group of workers is, not even MPs—most people would say especially not MPs. But there is nothing more galling for firefighters than to hear Ministers and MPs singing their praises for their emergency skills and then treating them like this. Many Government Members recognise that that is not right, and many Liberal Democrats have signed the early-day motion.
	The Government have a chance to show decency, common sense and fairness. The public wants to know why, if the devolved Assemblies can reach agreement on the matter—the Minister said that that is not the case,
	but Members from Northern Ireland said that it is —firefighters in England cannot have the same deal. I hope that the Government relent on the matter. If they do not, I hope that there are enough Members on the Government Benches who will abstain or vote against their party to ensure that these regulations are revoked.
	I have four quick questions for the Front-Bench team. First, in her written ministerial statement, the Minister says that section 22 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 could be used. How many instances has that section been used by a Secretary of State? Secondly, she said that fire authorities in the devolved regions can initiate retirement, and that those initiated retirements are paid for by the Government, so why is that not happening in England? Thirdly, she says that the framework makes that not just advisory, but statutory. Will she put that in the Library of the House, because that is not the legal advice that our firefighters are getting? Fourthly, she says that firefighters would see a reduction in their pension of 21%. Does she think that that is the way to treat our fire brigade?

Richard Fuller: All of us elected to Parliament bring with us the memories of our experiences before we became MPs. For me, one such experience is of having lived in New York at the start of the century—specifically of having lived there on 9/11. That day, 341 of the 2,977 people who died were firefighters. They died running into buildings to help other people get out. The firefighters in New York were heroes, and we have every expectation that our own firefighters in the same situation would act heroically as well. We have a special responsibility today to get these regulations right. So, how are we doing? The answer must be: not very well.
	We start with the shadow Secretary of State’s speech. It was very nice of him to quote my question and to see him getting up to speed on this issue, but it is a little bit too late in the day. It was not clear whether his speech was more about the specifics of the regulation or, since that postcard from Rochester and Strood, about the Labour party trying to reconnect to the working people that it has left behind. Who better than the brother of a wannabe viscount to lead that charge? These issues are substantive. If changing the retirement age is a substantive issue, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows what he is doing. If, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the age of 60 is incorrect, what we will find is that we begin to undo the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and let loose a £1 trillion liability on the public purse. I do not know what the intent of the shadow Secretary of State is. I do not know what the intent of the Leader of the Opposition is. On controlling energy prices, taxes on homes and pensions, the right hon. Gentleman is a man who likes to throw snowballs at the sun to claim that he creates Christmas, so that he can set false expectations for people.
	Let me turn now to the Minister. In response to my question, she said that she would ensure that firefighters who failed the fitness test would not lose their jobs. She said that that guarantee could be given within the national framework agreement. The Local Government Association has clearly said that it would not be compelled to comply with it. That does not sound like a convincing guarantee, does it? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that she must make this guarantee a “must”, not a “may
	be” or a “trust me” but a “must”. We must ensure that we give that guarantee to our firefighters to do them justice for their heroism on our behalf.

Ian Lavery: Is it not an absolute outrage that we have only 90 minutes in this zombie Parliament for such an important debate? This matter should have been worthy of at least a day’s debate.
	The men and women in the fire and rescue service do a tremendous and dangerous job. We are talking about not just their pensions and whether they finish at 55 or 60, but the safety and health of our constituents. I do not want a 60-year-old man or woman climbing up a ladder, expecting to pull me—16 stone and 6 ft 1—out of a window and climbing back down the ladder again. If there is anybody here who thinks that is the right thing to do, they know how to vote tonight. We must treat this matter extremely seriously. We are not talking about a normal job here. It is a job for young, healthy people who keep themselves fit throughout their whole career. They should not be doing this job in the twilight of their career at 60 years of age. For heaven’s sake, everybody knows that! It is no good trying to deny it. We want young men and women rescuing people in our communities.
	The matter has been sorted out in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Why on earth can we not sort it out here in England? It is purely about ideology. Who do we want to see when there is a bomb attack, a problem in the tube station, an explosion or a fire? We want to see the fire and rescue brigade.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman referred to Northern Ireland. Clearly, the Northern Ireland Assembly understand that there is a physical issue and recognise what people are able to do at the age of 55 and 60. They have also secured their pension fund. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that whereas Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have accepted the union’s view, here, in England, the supreme example of what is being done elsewhere cannot be done?

Ian Lavery: That is the very point I am trying to make. It is common sense. We are asking the Minister: why not accept that here in England, when everywhere else in the UK has? The answer has everything to do with ideology. There is no one who wants this change. The general public are opposed to it; a large number of MPs are opposed to it; the workers are opposed to it; and the medical experts are emphatic in their opposition. They say that it is not right to suggest that people aged 60 can do this sort of work. No one, apart from this Government, supports this measure. We want the Government to reconsider. We want our firefighters to have the same as the firefighters in Northern Ireland: retirement at 55 without any financial penalty. They are losing 21.8% of their pension if they retire at the age of 55. It is an absolute outrage. MPs would not accept that, so why should members of the Fire Brigades Union, people who support our communities? There are no payment guarantees. We want law, not guidance. It is not good enough to say at the Dispatch Box and in a ministerial statement put out on the day of the debate that everything in the garden is rosy. We owe the members of the fire and rescue service a huge debt of gratitude.
	But gratitude does not put food on the table and feed the kids. I salute the dedication, commitment and professionalism of the men and women in our tremendous service. Let us get our act together tonight, revoke the statutory instrument and negotiate a fair deal for firefighters.

Angela Watkinson: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I speak as a member of a fire service family. She has been very kind in meeting me on several occasions to answer my many questions. My main concerns are: remaining operationally fit to the age of 60; the absence of redeployment opportunities; and the effect on pension entitlement for those firefighters who are unable to remain operationally fit.
	Firefighting is a physical occupation that requires a high level of fitness to undertake tasks safely—safely for the individual, their colleagues and members of the public. The Williams review estimates that two thirds of firefighters between the ages of 55 and 60 are below the recommended fitness level, meaning not that they are overweight but that that age group has naturally occurring age-related conditions such as arthritis, worn joints and many others. Firefighters are interdependent in dangerous situations, and most aged 55 to 60 are not as fit as those half their age. When they go into a building that is on fire and full of smoke, they have to wear breathing apparatus, and there might be people who have to be brought out to safety. A watch is only as strong as its weakest link.

Penny Mordaunt: I stress to my hon. Friend, whom I know is very concerned about these issues, not least because of her connections, that a great many firefighters are already required to work until 60. At the moment, older firefighters have no protections. We are introducing a measure that will improve the current situation and ensure that if there is no operational role for someone to go into, they will get not just a pension but an unreduced pension.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.
	Operational fitness has been a major concern in agreeing future employment and pension arrangements. I have read in briefing material that two types of ill health retirement attract immediate access to a reduced pension, but there is concern that another, wider group of firefighters will not meet the new fitness standards and will be deemed not competent, but not permanently unfit, and therefore will not eligible for an ill health pension. If there are no redeployment opportunities—given that, according to the FBU, only five fire authorities have 16 redeployment opportunities between them at the moment, that seems likely—they worry that they will be at risk of dismissal without access to their pension until they reach the normal retirement age. It is the “No job, no pension” spectre that they fear. I hope my hon. Friend can say something about that in her concluding comments.
	Will my hon. Friend also please clarify the effect of the revised pension scheme on the following groups of firefighters who are no longer operationally fit: those aged 55 to 60 with a diagnosable medical condition, whether job related or not; those aged 55 to 60 who
	have failed the fitness standards, but without a diagnosable medical condition; and those two groups under the age of 55? Will they receive a full or reduced salary if redeployed? Will they receive a full or reduced pension if retired? Will pensions be paid immediately on retirement, or will they have to wait until the normal retirement age?
	Will my hon. Friend do more to encourage fire authorities to reach a consistent standard, so that firefighters across the country know what to expect with regard to their pensions if they are deemed no longer competent to continue? It would help to avoid future strikes, which nobody wants, firefighters least of all—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Andrew McDonald: Perhaps I can get to the nub of the matter: lowering fitness standards to ensure that firefighters can work to the age of 60 is reckless in the extreme. No responsible Government would do that, because there is no doubt that it would result in somebody dying. The Government should think again. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), is on the record as saying:
	“The government believes a solution can be reached, but not under the shadow of industrial action, which only serves to damage firefighters’ good standing with the public. By calling more strikes during an open consultation the FBU leadership has once again shown it is not serious about finding a resolution.”
	I thoroughly disagree. Reputational damage is indeed being caused, but not to our highly regarded and respected firefighters; it is the Government’s reputation that is being trashed.
	Firefighting is a dangerous and physically demanding job. Firemen and women risk their lives rescuing people from burning buildings and endanger themselves in hazardous situations in order to keep us safe. Most people agree that, given their commitment and the risks they take, they should be entitled to a fair and workable pension scheme. It is the Government’s standing with the public, not the firefighters’, that is being damaged by this shambolic pensions dispute.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so depressing is not only the content of this debate, but the spirit in which it is being conducted? The Government are losing faith with the firefighters and essentially blackmailing them. That is what is in front of them: a blackmail. They are being told to accept it or leave it.

Andrew McDonald: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Firefighters have been presented with a Hobson’s choice: to continue working in a dangerous job beyond the point at which the body is capable, or to have their pensions starkly reduced if they opt for retirement. Worse still, the Minister has said today that if firefighters do not back down, they will have no cover whatsoever. What sort of a way is that to treat such valued public servants?
	I have been contacted by a constituent, a 45-year-old firefighter. Under the pension scheme in place when he joined, he could have retired at 50 as he would have accrued more than 25 years’ service. However, the retirement age has been raised to 55, and because full pension protection will be given only to firefighters within 10 years of the normal pension age, from 2016 his pension will now be only partially protected. The situation is blatantly unfair to my constituent, who has paid into his pension scheme since joining the fire brigade and has always been led to believe that his retirement year was 2020. He feels that he has been discriminated against on the basis of age, and on the balance of evidence I find it difficult to disagree with that conclusion.
	Some firefighters will be penalised for their age. Although someone older with fewer years of service who is within 10 years of the normal retirement age will be fully protected, my constituent and many others in a similar situation will not. I am sure that officials and legal teams have applied their collective minds to the application of the Equality Act 2010, because it seems to me that this flies in the face of the spirit of the legislation, which is that workers should not be discriminated against on the basis of their age.
	Our firefighters routinely put themselves in danger in their line of work. They save lives and keep us safe. We should value our fire services and the brave men and women who keep them running. The minimum we should expect is for the Government to ensure that services remains workable, keeping firefighters and the public as safe as possible. Those who commit themselves to such a physically demanding career should have a fair pension scheme and should expect to be able to retire in security. Firefighters demonstrate great dedication to others and real determination in their line of work. I suggest that the Government take a lesson from our firefighters, take note of the points raised in this debate and return to the negotiating table with a realistic and fair proposal.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and I certainly agree with his tribute to firefighters. I find myself in a very difficult position tonight in deciding how to vote on this statutory instrument. The very first debate I ever had in Westminster Hall was on Rushden fire station, which the Conservatives were fighting to keep open and the Labour county council wanted to close. In Northamptonshire we have an excellent fire and rescue service. In some respects it leads the whole of Europe. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) want to intervene? I will tell the hon. Gentleman, while I am at it, that Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, and I are today launching a campaign for more fire cover for north Northamptonshire. We will go up there tonight and—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Corby want to intervene?
	Turning to firefighters’ pensions, there is one issue that seems to cut through all of this. I have spoken with the chief fire officer and the FBU representatives and seen firefighters on the picket line, and I went to see Green Watch in Wellingborough. In all these disputes, we should ignore the FBU and the employers and listen to the actual firefighters and what they tell us. The one
	problem is that firefighters are genuinely worried that when they get to 55 they might, through no fault of their own, lose their pension. If the Minister could give me an assurance that those firefighters would be redeployed or—

Penny Mordaunt: I am very happy to give those assurances—[Interruption.] We have done that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear the answer, and I am sure the rest of us will gain from what the Minister has to say.

Penny Mordaunt: If someone fails a fitness test through no fault of their own and they do not qualify for ill health retirement, they will get a redeployed role or an unreduced pension. That will be put on a statutory footing in the national framework—a full, unreduced pension, if not an alternative role.

Peter Bone: Having heard the words of the Minister, I think the whole House can now support the statutory instrument.

John McDonnell: I am the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. Firefighters expect the House to rise to the occasion. This is not a party political issue.
	In 2006, when the previous Government introduced the new pension scheme with later retirement at 60, I opposed it, but at that time all those in the old pension scheme were given a guarantee and an assurance that they would remain in that scheme and it would be protected. Those coming into the new scheme were told that if there was a problem with regard to their fitness, there would be alternative jobs for them. Those alternative jobs did not exist. We identified only 15 over that whole period. Since then we have lost 5,000 firefighter posts. In addition, the alternative jobs that existed have been reclassified from grey book to green book, which means cuts in pay.
	The firefighters therefore feel betrayed. They were given assurances, they signed up to the scheme, they entered a pension scheme as a legal agreement, they paid their contributions, and now they are seeing their pension put at risk, even those in the new scheme. All they are asking for is for the House to rise to the occasion tonight, revoke the regulations and allow negotiations to take place. Negotiations have worked in all the other countries in the UK; they can work here as well.
	Our firefighters are anxious, first, that, as has been reported, they will lose about 21% of their pension entitlement. Secondly, the assurances that the guidelines will be put on a statutory footing simply mean that fire authorities must have regard to those guidelines; they will not be enforced on those authorities. That means that firefighters could, if they are not fit enough, lose their job and at the same time have their pensions cut considerably. That is what they are fearful of, and we would all be fearful of that, wouldn’t we?
	The other issue that firefighters have brought up is the fitness standards they have to meet. If they cannot meet them, they are forced into that situation. They will therefore not be providing the level of service needed to
	keep our people safe. I urge Members to support the motion. This is not a party political debate. Vote tonight to enable the Government to have time to come back and negotiate a settlement.
	A few years ago there was a peak in the number of firefighters who died protecting our country. I met their families. We have a duty of honour to the firefighters to protect them tonight, just as they protect our community.
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	The House divided:

Ayes 261, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 838; Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 838; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 November 2014, on counterterrorism and human rights; Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on counter-terrorism and human rights, reported to the House on 26 November 2014, HC 836; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 859; Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 859.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

David Hanson: I beg to move amendment 29, page1,line8,at end insert—
	‘(2) This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.
	(3) The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.”

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause 1 stand part.
	Amendment 17,in schedule 1, page30,line14, at end insert—
	“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met.”
	Government amendment 13.
	Schedule 1 stand part.
	New clause 8—Police bail for terrorism suspects—
	‘(1) Section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after “offence” insert “or on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
	(3) In subsection (2)(b) after “Act” insert “or section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
	(4) After subsection (5) insert—
	“(5A) A grant of bail under this section shall last no longer than six months from the date of release.”
	As an alternative to the ad hoc passport seizure and retention scheme set out at Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill this new clause would make police bail, with conditions, available for those suspected of terrorism.

David Hanson: Mr Streeter, I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee. I rise on behalf of my hon. Friends to speak to amendments 29 and 17.
	I hope you will allow me a little leeway, Mr Streeter, before we begin the debate. Although this Bill has nothing to do with what has happened in Sydney, Australia, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to recognise that there has been a serious incident there and for us to express our condolences in relation to those who have died as a result. It reminds us that terrorism and terrorist activity are never far from our shores and from individuals in our communities as well. That is why it is important that we look at the new clauses and amendments before us in what will be, I hope, a positive discussion and debate.
	The Government believe there is a need to legislate on counter-terrorism. There is a terrorism threat in the United Kingdom: on 29 August the independent joint terrorism analysis centre raised the UK national terrorist threat level from substantial to severe. [Interruption.]

Gary Streeter: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but a lot of background conversations are going on in the Chamber and we can hardly hear the most important speech that is being made. Will colleagues please keep the noise down?

David Hanson: I am grateful to you, Mr Streeter.
	It is important that we recognise that terrorist attacks are, sadly, highly likely. According to the Government’s own analysis in the explanatory notes:
	“Approximately 500 individuals of interest to the police and security services have travelled from the UK to Syria and the region since the start of the conflict. It is estimated half of these have returned. In the context of this heightened threat to our national security, the provisions of the Bill”
	are designed to address those matters.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and I have tabled amendments 29 and 17 because there needs to be a debate about two particular issues. If the Bill’s measures are agreed by both Houses they will become law, but there will be no end date or review date for the powers. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that clause 1
	“shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.”
	It goes on:
	“The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.”
	The amendment is therefore designed to create, in effect, a sunset clause to review the legislation, which is not unusual for terrorism legislation. It would not demand that we revisit the whole clause by seeking to enact new legislation; it would simply require a resolution to allow the provisions to continue. The amendment has merit and I will willingly discuss it with the Minister.

Mark Field: Although I agree with the shadow Minister that that amendment does, in principle, have some merit and that it focuses the mind on the fact that we need consolidating legislation to deal with a whole range of different terrorism-related issues, does he not recognise that the raw logic of his proposal is that if such a sunset clause is agreed, the provisions could end up entirely unprotected
	if the Government did not introduce any new legislation at that point? That would not be a desirable state of affairs.

David Hanson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at amendment 29, which states:
	“This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force”.
	Therefore, it does not require new legislation; it simply requires a resolution of this House, which could be agreed in an hour-and-a-half debate, as has happened in the past. Indeed, clause 17(5) states:
	“Subsections (1) to (4) are repealed on 31 December 2016”,
	so there is already a remit for a resolution to review the provisions. Amendment 29 has a similar purpose.
	Amendment 17 is slightly different. It states that, if an individual has had their travel document removed under the provisions of clause 1 and schedule 1, they
	“may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions…of this schedule were met.”
	At the moment there is no appeal procedure for an individual who has lost their passport, and that needs to be considered.
	On amendment 29, clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which defines a number of areas and sets out a course of action relating to the seizure of a passport from a person suspected of involvement in terrorism offences. Under the heading “Interpretation”, the schedule states that immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers can remove a passport from an individual. By “passport”, it means either a United Kingdom passport or one issued by another nation. The schedule defines involvement in terrorism-related activity as the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; conduct that facilitates the commission of terrorism; conduct that gives encouragement to terrorism; and conduct that gives support or assistance to terrorism. The schedule also includes powers to search for, inspect and retain travel documents. Authorisation for that will not just be sought from a senior police officer; the schedule also includes conditions for how that authorisation will be agreed.
	I refer to those points because they are definitive statements. They may or not be appropriate or work in practice, but whatever the Minister tells us today he will accept that the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement at the end of August that the measures would be introduced. It is now December, which means that the Bill has been drafted speedily. I make no general criticism of that, but even the Bill’s explanatory notes state that there has been limited consultation on a range of aspects, even though the matters covered in schedule 1 involve serious powers.
	The schedule allows for the period in which the document can be removed and retained by the judicial authority to be extended from the initial 14-day period to 30 days. Paragraph 14 states:
	“This paragraph applies where a person’s travel documents are retained”.
	Paragraph 14(2) gives the Secretary of State a great power:
	“The Secretary of State may make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the person… during the relevant period”
	and
	“on the relevant period coming to an end.”
	The Secretary of State is also bound by schedule 1 to produce a code of practice covering training, the exercise of functions by constables, the information to be given, and how and when that information is to be given. The code of practice will be published in draft and laid before this House. All those matters are covered by schedule 1.
	I have gone through the schedule in detail because it covers an awful lot of potential activity that may or may not work as the Government intend it to. The purpose of our proposed sunset clause is not to say that Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose clause 1 or schedule 1, because, although some Members might, we do not. Our amendment addresses the fact that the schedule proposes creating a complex new code of practice relating to the criteria covering individual officers and others who can exercise the powers, including removing the passports of not only British citizens but citizens of foreign countries.
	If we enact that in the next few weeks, it will be a serious piece of legislation. In view of the reasons the Minister has given for introducing the provisions, it would do no harm for him to consider—this is the purpose of amendment 29—a date for us formally to allow the legislation to fall, unless the House is satisfied with the original proposal. By December 2016, there will have been a general election and the House of Commons will be composed of whoever has been elected, and whoever is the Minister will be able to review the legislation to see whether it works. They would then be able to table a motion to pass a resolution allowing the legislation to continue unamended.

Mark Field: The shadow Minister is making some fair points and I think the whole House would broadly support the idea that we need to consider how the Bill will be applied in practice. We all recognise that the new powers raise some legitimate concerns relating to civil liberties. Rather than having a sunset clause, has the right hon. Gentleman given some thought to the idea of imposing on the Home Office an obligation, within a year of the Bill being enacted, to produce a full report on the workings of this novel change in procedure?

David Hanson: We did consider those matters and I originally drafted an amendment that sought to do that. I could have tabled it last Thursday but I decided to focus our debate on whether the legislation is fit for purpose. I am not saying that it is not; I am simply saying that there are severe changes in the Bill that restrict individuals, give powers to police officers and others, set out a new code of practice and give a range of powers to the Secretary of State to do what they wish with detained individuals. If the Opposition are to support the clause this evening, as we will, it must be reviewed at some point in the future. The mechanism we suggest means that a Minister, whoever that might be, must review the situation and either table a motion or, if the legislation ultimately falls, table a replacement piece of legislation in time for 31 December 2016.
	I am not seeking to cause difficulties for the Minister with amendment 29. I simply want him to consider in detail his proposals in clause 1 and schedule 1 and whether we should have a sunset clause. We want such a clause because one of the gaps in the legislation means that there is no mechanism for appeal in the event of the powers in schedule 1 or clause 1 being exercised against an individual. An individual's travel documents will be
	removed for 14 days, and potentially for 30 days, but in the meantime there is no mechanism through which they can appeal effectively against that decision. Amendment 17 allows for an appeal in the courts on the subject of
	“the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met”.
	The Committee will agree that the right of British citizens to travel freely, unrestricted by state interference, is crucial and historical.

Mark Reckless: Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, would not the right approach be to accept his amendment 17 and the judicial right of appeal rather than having a sunset clause? Does he plan to press that amendment to a vote?

David Hanson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

Julian Smith: The shadow Minister has already said that schedule 1 is detailed and that there is a lot to contemplate in it. Would not adding the right to appeal further complicate it? People will already get their passport back after two weeks, so why this additional complication?

David Hanson: I was coming on to those points, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might help if I outlined some of the circumstances. If an individual’s passport is removed, it will be because there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in some activities that mean he should not travel abroad. That suspicion might be well founded—I am trying to be fair, and I doubt that the power would be exercised if it were not well founded—but there still might be occasions when an individual was travelling to a difficult, challenging country for a family wedding, a holiday, an employment interview, or for other perfectly legitimate reasons. The security services might wrongly identify an individual; that can occasionally happen. The individuals responsible might have challenges for a range of reasons. The information supplied to the security services—for example, by a parent whose adult child is travelling—may be wrong.
	The simple point is that if that power is exercised, the individual loses their passport and their ability to travel and so might well miss a job interview, a family wedding or a holiday and might be wrongly marked out in their social circles. That could happen. I am not saying that it will, but it could. Amendment 17 is meant to ensure that if that individual feels that they have been wrongly treated, they have a right to ask for a review by a court. It is reasonable to do that under UK law.

Julian Smith: After two weeks, the individual will get their passport back anyway. This is a really wishy-washy way of carrying on, and we should either be confident that this is a good measure or not. They will get their passport back within two weeks.

David Hanson: This is a very strong and effective power, which the Opposition support as it will ensure that measures are taken against individuals who might go abroad for terrorist purposes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one of the balances of strong powers is the right to strong redress. It might only be for 14 days, as he says, or it might be for only 30 in due course, but that could mean losing a £5,000 or £6,000 holiday with no compensation, missing a family wedding or a person’s own wedding or losing a job opportunity for what could be a case of mistaken identity.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

David Hanson: I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervene, because I know that he has expressed concerns about the power. In a very helpful article in The Guardian on 3 September, he said:
	“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence…But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent…people will find their travel plans wrecked.”
	I agree with him and that is why, even given the 14-day period, I think that we should consider the proposal in amendment 17. I hope that the Minister will do so.

Dominic Grieve: I expressed that concern and it remains a concern, but the interesting point about amendment 17 is that if we were to allow an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, how quickly could such an appeal be heard and would it have a significant impact on the shortness of time in which a passport might be capable of being returned, given that we now know that there will be two weeks, or 14 days, for that return to take place? I listened carefully to what he has to say and it seems to me that he is making a good point, but I would also be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the right hon. Gentleman how such a system could be made to work in reality.

Gary Streeter: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that interventions should be slightly briefer than that.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mr Streeter. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but we are in opposition, which is a difficult and cold place. We do not have the officials that the Minister has. The principle is that we believe there should be an examination of the right of appeal on any decision that has taken. The purpose of amendment 17 is to place that argument before the Government so that they can say whether they believe there should be any right of appeal or whether they believe that 14 days or 30 days is sufficient, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and that there is no need for an appeal as it would not resolve the issue. It is inherent in any decision of this seriousness that an individual should be able to challenge a decision on the grounds of mistaken identity or the grounds of loss of service in a court.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise, Mr Streeter, for taking up too much time. I shall be brief and make more frequent interventions, if I am allowed them. It seemed to me when I made that point back in September that a particular concern was somebody who might be prevented from going away for a wedding or for employment reasons and who wanted a rapid review, but I am also realistic about whether such a rapid review can be made available in practice. That was why I raised at a subsequent date the other question of whether we should consider compensation if somebody were disadvantaged.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point and we probably agree on the principle. The purpose of amendment 17 is to give the Minister the opportunity to tease out the practicalities of deliverability for any form of appeal. I take the view—it may be old-fashioned, but that is not for me to say—that if someone is effectively charged with involvement in terrorism, which is why a passport will be removed, that is a serious initial action by the state against an individual. The individual might be the subject of mistaken identity or factually wrong information might have been given, whether maliciously or not. They might be travelling for perfectly legitimate purposes, as I have said. In each of those cases, they should ultimately have the right to say to a third party, “I appreciate that these facts have been put before the passport remover, but they are fundamentally wrong and I demand my passport back.” That must be possible in a more speedy and effective way than is the case under the Bill.

David Winnick: Is it not the case, if we believe in fairness and the rule of law, that the stronger the action taken against an individual by the state, the more powerful the argument is that the individual should have the right of appeal? Without the right of appeal, the Bill gives the state excessive powers.

David Hanson: That is an important point.
	As the Committee will know, under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, there is the power to stop and question individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. The annual report on the Terrorism Acts by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, that was published in July this year gave facts and figures about that power. It included the number and ethnicities of the people who have been examined under schedule 7 in recent years. Although he noted that there was not overwhelming evidence that the power was exercised in a “racially discriminatory manner”, he noted:
	“It remains imperative that police should exercise their considerable powers in a sensitive, well-informed and unbiased manner”.

Jeremy Corbyn: Would the proposal in amendment 17 not be stronger if there was a time limit within which the Home Office had to reply to the application to remove a passport, so that the court would have to consider the matter in a timely manner? There is a parallel in the people who are denied entry to this country or are deported from this country and who have to appeal from a third country. The fact that there is no time limit means that the injustices that such cases often involve can go on for a very long time.

David Hanson: That suggestion is worthy of consideration.
	The official Opposition tabled an amendment to say that there should be a right of appeal for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out. That concern is shared by Members across the House. It is a basic right of appeal. We can look at how it could be exercised, as ever. We might be able to improve the amendment technically. However, if we had not tabled amendment 17, we would not be having a debate about the right to appeal against this measure. The purpose of the debate is to say to the Minister that we think there should be a right of appeal. If the Minister is sympathetic to that idea, he can take it away.

Mark Field: rose—

Lady Hermon: rose—

David Hanson: I give way first to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Field: Perhaps I do not share the great faith in the bureaucratic competence of the Home Office that was expressed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—

Jeremy Corbyn: It was the opposite.

Mark Field: I guessed that that was the case. I was being slightly ironic. One issue with the notion that we could have appeals is that if there was a great emergency and the passports of many dozens or even many hundreds of people were seized, the appeals process would become unwieldy. One hopes that such a situation will not come about. If there was a small number of individuals at any one time, it would be quite manageable, but if there was a large number, that would make it more difficult.

David Hanson: We do not yet know on how many occasions the power will be exercised. I suspect that a vast number of passports will not be seized, but we cannot anticipate that. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,
	“500 individuals of interest to the police…have travelled from the UK to Syria…since the start of the conflict.”
	That has happened over the past 18 months to three years. The number of individuals travelling out of the UK who may be of interest might be small, but that does not mean that they should not have the right of appeal because, as I have said, mistakes can be made.
	I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for referring to me as his hon. Friend. I remind my right hon. Friend that, as he would have been well aware when he was in the Northern Ireland Office, under the Belfast agreement, which was signed on Good Friday, people who are born in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and to hold the passport of the United Kingdom, the passport of the Irish Republic or both. If those travel documents were confiscated, would it be the Irish passport and the British passport for those who have both? There has to be some form of appeals mechanism if they are confiscated, because the issue is even more complicated if people are leaving or entering Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. She will see that under paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, passport means “a United Kingdom passport” or
	“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation”.
	It is imperative that we consider the issue of appeals because foreign citizens or citizens of the UK might have two passports.
	If information is provided about an individual, this measure will allow the serious act of removing their passport and stopping them travelling. Although it will no doubt be very well researched, very well executed and very well managed by the security services, the police, immigration officers and others who are allowed to undertake these matters under schedule 1, the possibility of wrong or disputable facts will always be there. Those wrong or disputable facts will mean that a UK citizen loses their liberty, their passport and their ability to travel. We need to be cognisant of that issue.

Mark Durkan: Further to the point that was made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), if a passport that was issued by a state other than the UK was seized, does my right hon. Friend envisage that that state would seek to join the appeal against the seizure? Does he believe that Ministers have fully taken account of the diplomatic implications of that?

David Hanson: Again, that demonstrates why the issue of appeals is important. Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 refers to
	“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.
	I can envisage a situation in which an individual who is the citizen of and holds the passport of not, dare I say it, the Irish Republic, but another country in the European Union or even a country outside the European Union, but who is resident in or travelling from the UK, is suspected for a range of reasons of involvement in terrorism-related activity under paragraph 1(10) of schedule 1. Again, the UK would be in the difficult situation of depriving an individual from another country of their passport on the basis of a range of suspicions that may or may not prove to be factual. I am in danger of repeating myself and am being careful not to do so, but we need to examine such facts carefully. The purpose of amendment 17 is to stimulate a debate about that.

Julian Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hanson: I am trying to wind up my remarks, but I will give way.

Julian Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is his mechanism for appeal? Surely the measure allows border control officers to take a passport without giving too many reasons and, after two weeks, for a judicial review to take place. How would his appeal process work? How would we avoid giving away intelligence during the appeal that could jeopardise the United Kingdom’s security?

David Hanson: That is a valid point, but judicial review is not what I would call a cheap and easy process. It could not be accessed quickly and easily by an individual who had lost their passport in the circumstances set out in schedule 1. The hon. Gentleman will see that we have included in amendment 17 a reference to appeal “in the courts”. That is intended to stimulate debate—it could be a magistrates court, a court sitting in private or a Crown court. We simply say that the appeal should be in a court. The schedule allows the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice, which could indicate which court should deal with such matters and whether it could sit in private. It would be reasonable for the code of practice to do that.
	My purpose in tabling amendment 17 was to focus on the issue of appeals. I will be happy to withdraw it if the Minister provides reassurance, or we might revisit the matter in the other place. However, since the publication of the Bill and Second Reading, we have felt that we needed some mechanism for examining the case for appeals.
	I have detained the House for far too long, but I wish to say two final things. First, amendment 29 is simply about a date of review and would not detract from the Bill in any way, shape or form. It would simply provide a date by which the Secretary of State would have to examine clause 1 and decide either to continue it or bring forward new legislation. One reason why we need that review is that there is no appeal mechanism, which amendment 17 would provide.
	Secondly, I will listen to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has to say about her new clause 8. I have some concerns about her proposal for police bail for terrorism suspects. We need to think carefully before using police bail if a Government have decided to remove someone’s passport. I do not wish to comment further on the new clause at this point, but I will listen to her remarks.
	I hope that the Committee will consider my points about the Opposition’s amendments, and I hope for a positive response from the Minister.

Caroline Lucas: I would indeed like to say a few words about new clause 8, which I tabled. As we know, there will be situations in which it is necessary to prevent a person from leaving the country, but I would argue that the police already have a tried and tested way of preventing suspects from doing so—the power of arrest, combined with the ability to require passport surrender if a suspect is arrested and released without charge. However, passport surrender is not currently possible in the case of those arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as conditional police bail cannot be granted following such arrests. That anomaly means that there is a currently a loophole in the ability of law enforcement to require passport surrender of terrorism suspects. It would be much simpler to remove that loophole than to proceed with the convoluted passport retention scheme set out in clause 1 and schedule 1.
	The safest and fairest way to prevent suspects from leaving the country to participate in terrorist activity would be for police officers to use their powers of arrest. If an individual was considered to pose an immediate risk to
	the country, they could be detained rather than left to roam the UK for 30 days, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they did not pose an immediate risk, they could be detained and bailed, and their passport could be surrendered as part of the process.
	Including that provision in the Bill and removing the bar on police bail would be much simpler and fairer than a convoluted passport surrender scheme. It would deliver the same practical result as the Government seemingly wish to achieve—preventing individuals from leaving the country—but would do so in a way that, crucially, protected against misuse and discrimination.
	My new clause is intended to give the police the powers they need, and to enable them to exercise them consistent with upholding suspects’ human rights. That would act as a greater deterrent, by allowing for arrest rather than summary passport seizure, and would help to overcome some of the in-built discrimination that exists in relation to stop-and-search and would inevitably be part of a stop-and-seizure approach to passports.

Mark Field: I do not wish to cast judgment on the two proposed processes, but does the hon. Lady not recognise that the arrest and bail process would probably involve a higher threshold than mere passport seizure? Considerably fewer people would therefore be subject to it, so it might not make the rest of us much safer. The Government’s intention in using passport seizure is to stop those who wish to escape these shores—they will not necessarily be guilty of any offence before doing so.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think his point stands up. Under new clause 8, an individual considered to pose an immediate risk to the country could be detained rather than being left to the roam the UK, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they were not considered to pose an immediate risk, they could be bailed and their passport seized. Seizing a passport as part of the bail process would be more effective than what I believe he proposes.

Mark Field: The problem is not that there would be a risk of people roaming through the UK and being a direct and immediate risk to other UK citizens. It is that they might leave these shores to carry out terrorist activity abroad.

Caroline Lucas: I do not see that as being more of a risk under my new clause, the advantage of which would be that we would not be involved in a so-called stop-and-seizure approach, which we know is often not effective. Summary stop powers do not yield effective results—Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that in most years since 2001, more than 1 million people have been stopped and searched, but only 9% were subsequently arrested. If the summary sanction were the removal of a passport, that failure rate would be too high. In addition to risking injustice for the individuals concerned, such an approach would serve to perpetuate a climate of fear and suspicion rather than encourage good relations between different communities in British society.
	The Home Secretary herself recently recognised the prejudicial nature of stop-and-search powers and sought to scale them back. She stated:
	“Nobody wins when stop and search is misused. It can be an enormous waste of police time and damage the relationship between the public and police.”
	It appears odd to legislate for a new stop-and-search-type power when the problems that such an approach causes have been clearly identified and when it is contrary to the Home Secretary’s policy on stop-and-search away from the borders.
	I do not think that my suggestions in new clause 8 would reduce our ability to ensure that we are secure. On the contrary, they would make us better able to know where people are, and crucially, they would mean that we would not use so-called stop-and-seizure powers, which have been discredited and are not very effective.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for the opportunity to debate a number of provisions relating to part 1 of the Bill, particularly the power of passport seizure and, most relevantly, schedule 1.
	The right hon. Gentleman highlighted some of the real-life events that are taking place elsewhere. We will all have been shocked to see the pictures on the television screens during the past few hours. The incident in Sydney is profoundly shocking, and it is deeply distressing to hear of the fatalities that have arisen from the hostage situation. The facts are still emerging, but our thoughts are with the families of those caught up in the tragic events. We all stand with the Australian Government and the people of Australia in utterly condemning anyone who would seek to use violence to advance political ends. The incident reminds us again that we must all be vigilant.
	I will turn shortly to the new clauses and amendments, including amendment 13, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the light of the debate, however, I think it will be helpful if I make some general points about the power of temporary passport seizure and its importance.
	The increasing number of people travelling to engage in terrorism-related activities overseas, and returning to the UK with enhanced terrorist-related capabilities, means that we need an additional power to disrupt an individual’s ability to travel at short notice. The Government are clear: we will provide the police with the powers they need to stop people travelling to fight for terrorist organisations overseas. Clause 1 makes provision for schedule 1 to the Bill, which provides for the
	“seizure and temporary retention of travel documents”
	at port by the police. Under the schedule the police—and designated Border Force officers at the discretion of the police—can seize and retain a travel document when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person at a port in Great Britain intends to leave to engage in terrorism-related activity outside the UK. That power can also be exercised at a port in the border area in Northern Ireland.
	Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted different measures, and existing powers have different tests and focus on different things. The new measure is significant because it will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel—I underline that point—based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling
	for terrorist-related activity. The passport is not cancelled and the document can be held for up to 14 days or, as we have heard, 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court.

Lady Hermon: This important Bill does not just apply to international terrorism, it applies to terrorism, and we in Northern Ireland have been afflicted for years by terrorism waged by dissident republicans. Will the Minister confirm whether he has been to and driven along the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? How many border posts and Border Force officials did he meet on that trip?

James Brokenshire: I had the pleasure of visiting Belfast on a number of occasions when I was security Minister, but I have not travelled along the direct route that the hon. Lady highlights. The important point is that the power clearly applies to people who are seeking to leave the United Kingdom to engage in terrorist-related activity outside the UK. We are arguing for such a power because of the effective way that it can disrupt terrorist-related activity.

Lady Hermon: I am sincerely grateful to the Minister for giving way because this is a really important point. We have a very open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and we are the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a frontier with another EU member state. There is no border built; there is no wire or wall, and it is full of little lanes and easy access to the United Kingdom. I am extremely anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become the soft underbelly of the rest of the United Kingdom for those who would wish us ill or want violence in this country. Will the Minister consider increasing the number of Border Force officials along the porous border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

James Brokenshire: I understand the hon. Lady’s sincerity and the manner with which she has advanced her point, and we must be vigilant about risks and threats that may be posed to the United Kingdom, whether in Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK. There is good work between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana, and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have a clear joint interest in ensuring border security. Indeed, we very much consider the common travel area to be an external border, which is why we work closely with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that it remains effective and in no way goes down the path mentioned by the hon. Lady. The Government must maintain that sense of vigilance and focus.

Mark Durkan: I represent a border constituency and we do not particularly want the border demarcated further in ways that applied historically. Schedule 1 defines the border area as one mile from the border with the Republic of Ireland. Is that as the crow flies, or when travelling? If there is a dispute about where the person was stopped and had their passport seized, how will the question of where the seizure took place be resolved?

James Brokenshire: Ultimately, those facts will concern any challenge that may be made, and a review may be undertaken of the proper exercise of the power and oversight provided for in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Delyn commented on the nature of the protections in the Bill. I hope that will assure the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the way such things would be advanced and protected, and that oversight is provided to deal with the issues he has raised.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the person whose passport or travel documents are removed be informed of the reason they have been taken away? The maximum time the passport can be held without going through a legal process is two weeks. When does the Minister envisage that there will be a review of that decision, and when can the person reasonably expect to get their documents back and be allowed to travel? The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) were clear—the issue is one of access to a judicial process, rather than an executive decision, which is effectively what the removal of the documents would be.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman leads me neatly to mention a number of protections in the Bill, and say how we will ensure that the exercise of this power is proportionate and suitably circumscribed by a range of stringent safeguards. Some of the points about the need for speed and assurances about the exercise of such powers have been well made. A powerful power is being advanced in schedule 1, and those who exercise it must be satisfied that it is necessary to retain the relevant documentation. The different mechanisms available to challenge a decision underscore why we regard current protections as proportionate to this power.
	In essence, officers who might exercise the power would be governed by a specific code of practice that would specify how they are to use it. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the constable must have
	“reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is there—”
	in the port—
	“with the intention of leaving the United Kingdom for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity”.
	The officer then has to seek a further review by a senior police office of at least superintendent level to confirm that the power is appropriate in that case. There is a further review by an officer of chief superintendent rank within 72 hours of the officer’s findings, and that is referred to the chief constable who must remain satisfied with the case. Even from an administrative perspective there are a significant number of checks and balances to ensure that the power is being exercised effectively. If the documents are to be retained beyond the 14-day period, there is a court process and a review to consider how further oversight should be provided.

Geoffrey Cox: I completely understand why the Government have decided that within the 14-day period there should be no appeal or review, but I cannot understand why paragraph 8 of schedule 1 prohibits or prevents the judge from considering whether there is a basis for the order or retention in the first place. All the judge can do is ensure that those who
	are considering the matter are doing so diligently. He is not able to look at the foundation and basis for the entire retention—at whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

James Brokenshire: My hon. and learned Friend highlights the mechanisms provided in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 on the manner in which the judge must be satisfied with the continued need to retain the documentation. His point is the basis or central tenet for the use of the power in the first place. Indeed, I think this relates to the point advanced by the right hon. Member for Delyn in one of his amendments. Judicial review is available to challenge the basis of the original decision. Therefore, there is a judicial right to question and challenge the basis on which the officer has used the power in the first place, as set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 1. We therefore believe there is a direct means to be able to challenge the underlying decision.

John McDonnell: The Minister refers to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). Judicial review is an extremely difficult and expensive route to secure justice. The point about magistrates, as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) says, is the diligent and expeditious use of an administrative power. Where there are grounds for a simpler right to appeal relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which is where someone has suffered repeated instances of having their documents taken off them. On that basis, a swift appeal system would at least give some confidence that it was not being used indiscriminately.

James Brokenshire: For the relevant document to need to be retained, the provisions in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 must remain outstanding: there must be consideration of whether the Secretary of State would use the royal prerogative, whether there are charges to be brought against that person, or whether there are other measures that may be relevant. The requirement still needs to be satisfied, which is why we have brought in the 14-day provision to ensure direct oversight and checks and balances through the mechanisms in the schedule.
	On cost, following further discussions with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, it may be helpful to clarify and expand on the evidence I gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December, on the availability of legal aid for those subject to the proposed temporary passport seizure powers and to provide clarity on the potential scope of legal aid in this context. I have written to the Chair of the Joint Committee today on this issue.
	Legal aid would potentially be available for the magistrates court proceedings provided for in the Bill, but at present that would be a discretionary decision for the director of legal aid casework. The Government are considering whether it would be proportionate to bring those proceedings within the scope of the general legal aid scheme to put individuals’ access to legal aid, subject to the statutory means and merits tests, beyond doubt. Legal aid is available under the general civil legal aid scheme for judicial review challenges by those subject to
	the temporary passport seizure power and the temporary exclusion order power, subject to the statutory means and merits tests.
	Returning to the provisions, a code of practice will provide clear guidance on how police and Border Force officers will exercise the powers. The Government will carefully review all responses received to the consultation that we propose to undertake in respect of the code, to ensure it contains effective guidance and provides clarity to officers on how the new powers should operate. The power is a proportionate and prudent response to the threat we face. It will allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes.
	Let me now turn to the amendments before us. I shall deal first with those from the Opposition. Amendment 17 seeks to provide a process for individuals to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove their travel documents at port. As I have described, the Bill already provides a specific court procedure. In addition, the individual can decide, at any time, to seek a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material proceedings may be available to allow consideration of any sensitive material. I do not believe, therefore, that the amendment adds a significant additional safeguard to the use of this power.
	Amendment 29 seeks to introduce a sunset clause to the temporary passport provisions. Doing so may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose if they believed that the powers would end in two years’ time. Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue. Our law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with it in a necessary and proportionate way. I wish we could be confident that the conflicts that attract these individuals will be resolved in two years, but it would be imprudent to plan on that basis.

David Hanson: If that is the case, why does clause 17 have a repeal date of 31 December 2016?

James Brokenshire: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raises that point. The parallel I think he seeks to draw is not relevant in this context. As he well knows, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, to which this provision relates, contains a sunset clause because of the need to have further and wider debate on communications data. What we are talking about here is a specific and focused power to deal with the immediate operational needs of our police and law enforcement agencies at the border to disrupt terrorist travel. Therefore, the parallels he seeks to adduce between the two clauses do not actually stack up.

Lady Hermon: The Minister referred to sending out a very clear signal to jihadists who wish us ill in this country. I agree entirely and I am sure the Committee agrees too. May I invite the Minister to confirm that the Bill will also apply to dissident republicans who sit in the Republic of Ireland and wish to bomb and murder prison officers and other members of the security forces within the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, so that the message is as loud and clear to dissident republicans as it is to jihadists?

James Brokenshire: Terrorism can take all sorts of different forms. The Bill is rightly not specific on what terrorist-related activity outside of the UK may be relevant, so I think the power is appropriately drafted.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised a point about the one-mile limit and I am conscious that I have not addressed it. The Northern Ireland border area is defined in the same terms as in other legislation, such as schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Northern Ireland border is one mile from the Republic of Ireland as the crow flies. I hope that provides certainty.
	Let me now turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As she has explained, they would remove the temporary passport seizure provision in its entirety. She also flagged up a point relating to the availability of police bail. I am sure the hon. Lady takes public safety extremely seriously, particularly in the current climate where we are facing the biggest challenge to our security since the horrific attacks of 9/11. The nature of terrorism-related arrests inherently means that the exact risk to the public from an individual, or their suspected involvement in a terrorist plot, may not be well understood at the early stages of an investigation. That is part of the reason why the police also have the power, 48 hours after the arrest of a terrorist suspect, to apply to the courts for a warrant of further detention to extend the initial detention up to a maximum of 14 days, subject to the seven-day review. To grant bail as the hon. Lady would want to, and at the stage she would want to when significant parts of an investigation are still ongoing, would increase the risk of potentially dangerous individuals being released before they have been sufficiently investigated. That is a risk the Government are not prepared to take.
	In preparing for this debate, I noted that when the right hon. Member for Delyn was a Minister back in 2009 he made exactly the self-same point. There are certain issues we disagree on, but his statements on the record underline the issues relating to the use of police bail and other relevant factors. We continue to judge, responding to David Anderson on this very point, that the granting of bail is not appropriate.

Caroline Lucas: Plenty of experts who agree that our security is the ultimate goal also see that my amendment is more robust than the Government’s proposal. With bail, one can attach a wide range of conditions, including curfews, restrictions and so on, and it is simply an anomaly for our security forces not to have this tool in their toolbox should they need it for terrorism.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has made that point several times, and she has been consistent in advancing her case, but there is a balance of risk, and we judge that bail in these circumstances would not be appropriate because of our fundamental focus on protecting national security. Furthermore, the Bill provides appropriate safeguards in several different ways to ensure that it is proportionate and meets the issues of necessity.
	Finally, the Government are making a technical amendment in relation to the code of practice. Amendment 13 would
	“make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations”
	in paragraph 19
	“to publish a draft of the code…to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications”
	in the light of those representations
	“and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.”
	Without the amendment, it could be argued that such things would only be valid if done after the Bill becomes an Act. The amendment removes any doubt about that.
	With the assurances I have given, I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will be minded not to press their amendments.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.
	Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

Julian Smith: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think carefully about pressing his amendment. What sort of message will it send to terrorists and people who threaten our country if he goes down this wishy-washy path of supporting the Bill but saying we should review it in 18 months’ time?

David Hanson: Having been counter-terrorism and policing Minister in the last Government, I know the extent of the threats we face, perhaps even more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that anybody has ever accused me of being wishy-washy on these matters—in fact, I have often been accused of being a little too harsh. However, it is right and proper, when we give powers to remove passports from individuals, that the House of Commons at least commits to reviewing those powers in two years—possibly to see whether we need to make them stronger; it might not mean we want to make them weaker. If he had his passport taken off him at Heathrow or Dover on spurious grounds, he would wish to have an appeal process in place. It is one of the basic tenets of this House of Commons.
	So, not being wishy-washy, but being committed to tackling terrorism at its core and taking firm and effective action to reduce the threat to this country, I still believe we need to review the Bill in two years’ time and give people the right to argue their case, should they so wish, and question the grounds on which their passport has been taken from them. On that basis, I would like to press amendment 29 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 220, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

Amendment proposed: 17,page30,line14, at end insert—
	“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met.”—(Mr Hanson.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: 13,page36,line13, at and insert—
	‘( ) Anything done before the day on which this Act is passed is as valid as if done on or after that day for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).”—(James Brokenshire.)
	This would make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations to publish a draft of the code of practice under Schedule 1, to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Temporary exclusion orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Clauses 3 to 10 stand part.
	Amendment 14, in clause11,page7,leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
	““specified individual” means a person named in a notification and managed return order and in relation to whom Conditions A-D of section [Notification and managed return orders] are met.
	“a carrier” has the same meaning as at section 18.”
	Amendment 15, in clause11,page7,leave out lines 20 to 24.
	Amendment 16, in clause11,page7,leave out line 41.
	Clause 11 stand part.
	New clause 4— Notification and managed return orders—
	‘(1) A “notification and managed return order” is an order requiring a person (“a carrier”) to notify the Home Secretary that—
	(a) a specified individual intends to travel to the UK, and
	(b) the date, time and location of the specified person‘s scheduled arrival.
	(2) The Secretary of State may impose a notification and managed return order if conditions A to D are met.
	(3) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the specified individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism related activity outside the United Kingdom.
	(4) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a notification and managed return order to be imposed on a carrier in relation to a specified individual.
	(5) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the specified individual is outside the United Kingdom.
	(6) Condition D is that the specified individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
	(7) During the period that a notification and managed return order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”
	New clause 5—Notification and managed return orders: supplementary provision—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must give notice of the imposition of a notification and managed return order to the specified individual and the carrier.
	(2) Notice of the imposition of a notification and managed return order may include notice that the specified individual may be stopped, questioned and detained on return to the United Kingdom.
	(3) A notification and managed return order—
	(a) comes into force when notice of its imposition is given; and
	(b) is in force for the period of two years (unless revoked or otherwise brought to an end earlier).
	(4) The Secretary of State may revoke a notification and managed return order at any time.
	(5) The Secretary of State must give notice of the revocation of a notification and managed return order to the specified individual and the carrier.
	(6) If a notification and managed return order is revoked, it ceases to be in force when notice of its revocation is given to the specified individual and the carrier.
	(7) The validity of a notification and managed return order is not affected by the specified individual—
	(a) returning to the United Kingdom, or
	(b) departing from the United Kingdom.
	(8) The imposition of a notification and managed return order does not prevent a further notification and managed return order from being imposed on a carrier in relation to the same specified individual (including in a case where an order ceases to be in force at the expiry of its two year duration).
	(9) The imposition of a notification and managed return order does not prevent a further notification and managed return order from being imposed on another carrier contemporaneously or consecutively in relation to the same specified individual.”
	New clause 6—Penalty for breach of notification and managed return order—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations setting out the penalties to be imposed for breaching a notification and managed return order.
	(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision—
	(a) about how a penalty is to be calculated;
	(b) about the procedure for imposing a penalty;
	(c) about the enforcement of penalties;
	(d) allowing for an appeal against a decision to impose a penalty;
	and the regulations may make different provision for different purposes.
	(3) Provision in the regulations about the procedure for imposing a penalty must provide for a carrier to be given an opportunity to object to a proposed penalty in the circumstances set out in the regulations.
	(4) Any penalty paid by virtue of this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
	(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”
	New clause 9—Imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice (a “TEO”) impose a “temporary exclusion order” which requires an individual not to return to the United Kingdom on an individual if conditions A to E in section [Conditions A to E] are met.
	(2) 1n this Act “temporary exclusion order” means requirements, restrictions and other provision which may be made in relation to an individual by virtue of section [Conditions A to E] “prior permission of the court” and Schedule [“Proceedings relating to temporary exclusion orders”].
	(3) An individual subject to a TEO may not return to the UK unless—
	(a) the return is in accordance with a permit to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual began the return, or
	(b) the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to the United Kingdom.”
	New clause 10—Conditions A to E—
	‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.
	(2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.
	(3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.
	(4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
	(5) Condition E is that—
	(a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or
	(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission.
	(6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”
	New clause 11—Prior permission of the court—
	‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—
	(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and
	(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.
	(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.
	(3) The function of the court on the application is—
	(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and
	(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).
	(4) The court may consider the application—
	(a) in the absence of the individual;
	(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and
	(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.
	(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.
	(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
	(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.
	(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.
	(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.
	(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—
	(a) condition A;
	(b) condition B;
	(c) condition C; and
	(d) condition D.”
	New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders—
	Introductory
	1 In this Schedule—
	“appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings;
	“the relevant court” means—
	(a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session;
	“rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session.
	Rules of court: general provision
	2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following—
	(a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and
	(b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest.
	(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision—
	(a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings;
	(b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing;
	(c) about legal representation in the proceedings;
	(d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party);
	(e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party);
	(f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10);
	(g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party’s absence.
	(3) In this paragraph—
	(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;
	(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.
	(4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so.
	Rules of court: disclosure
	3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose—
	(a) material on which the Secretary of State relies,
	(b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State’s case, and
	(c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings.
	(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4.
	4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure—
	(a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate;
	(b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);
	(c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;
	(d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);
	(e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.
	(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State—
	(a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or
	(b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary.
	(3) The relevant court must be authorised—
	(a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State‘s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State—
	(i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State‘s case, or
	(ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or
	(b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised.
	(4) In this paragraph—
	(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;
	(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.
	Article 6 rights
	5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.
	(2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act).
	Rules of court: anonymity
	6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for—
	(a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and
	(b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity;
	and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court.
	(2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual.
	(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure—
	(a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or
	(b) by persons generally,
	of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual.
	(4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures.
	Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor
	7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them.
	(2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—
	(a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
	(b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	(3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules.
	(4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.
	(5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) must be laid before Parliament, and
	(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period.
	(6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
	(7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)—
	(a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and
	(b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made.
	(8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph—
	(a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules);
	(b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure).
	(9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act.
	Use of advisers
	8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit—
	(a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers.
	(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of—
	(a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland;
	(b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland;
	(c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case.
	(3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1).
	(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine.
	9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a).
	(2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)—
	(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;
	(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).
	(3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c).
	Appointment of special advocate
	10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded.
	(2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”.
	(3) The “appropriate law officer” is—
	(a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General;
	(b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland;
	(c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
	(4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent.
	(5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—
	(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
	(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;
	(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”

Theresa May: I am very pleased to be able to participate in this part of the debate on an important Bill, and particularly pleased to be able to talk about temporary exclusion orders. Let me begin by explaining the background.
	Earlier this year, the joint terrorism analysis centre raised our national terrorist threat level from substantial to severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. Approximately 500 individuals who are of interest to the police and security services have travelled from the United Kingdom to Syria and the region since the start of the conflict, and it has been estimated that half of them have returned.
	In the context of that heightened threat to our national security, we need a power that will allow us to disrupt the travel, and control the return, of British citizens who have travelled abroad to engage in terrorist-related activity, and to manage the threat they pose. The temporary exclusion power will do just that. It will make it an offence for an individual who is subject to an order to return to the UK without first engaging with the UK authorities. It will also allow for the imposition of certain limited requirements on the individual on his or her return.
	Let me make it clear that this is a discretionary power, which will be considered for use on a case-by-case basis. Let me also reassure the Committee again that it will not render any individual stateless. British nationals who are made subject to an order will have the right—which their citizenship guarantees—to return to the UK. Clauses 2 to 11 relate to this TEO and set out the way it will operate and issues around the permits to return.
	As I have said, this measure will not make anybody stateless, but it will mean that when the people concerned return, they do so on our terms, and that could quite possibly be in the company of a police officer. The process of managed return will be a valuable addition to the suite of powers available to our agencies.
	It may assist the Committee if I set out in more detail how the power will operate. I, as Secretary of State, can impose a TEO if I reasonably suspect that an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity while outside the UK, and I consider that such an order is an appropriate tool to manage the threat he or she poses to the UK. Individuals subject to TEOs will have their British passports cancelled. They will be a class of passengers for whom authority to carry will have to be sought by carriers, under a new authority to carry scheme.
	The TEO will be imposed for two years, with the possibility of a new order being imposed following consideration after this time limit expires, but a person subject to an order will be allowed to return to the UK within a reasonable time frame if they make an application to do so or if they are deported by another country. To be clear on this point—because some might get confused about the two-year time frame in the Bill—that relates to the time the order remains extant and for which the terms of the order can be brought to bear on the individual. If the individual remains a threat at the end of that period, clause 2 allows for the imposition of a further order on the same individual.
	As I have said, these individuals will not be rendered stateless. They will not be left unable to return to the UK for an indefinite period. They must be issued a permit to return within a reasonable period if they apply for one, and attend an interview if required to do so. I should restate, to make this very clear to the Committee, that the policy is compliant with all our domestic and international legal obligations.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for taking part in this section of the debate. That is lovely, and although the Minister was very good, it is always very nice to have the Home Secretary here in person.
	We have an individual who lives in south Armagh—this is not in any way to criticise the people of south Armagh, who are ordinary, decent, hard-working individuals—whose land straddles the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am not going to use parliamentary privilege to name him, but he is well known to the security services on both sides of the border and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it is well known that he funds dissident republican terrorism. I would like the Home Secretary to confirm that that particular gentleman could be excluded using the temporary provision power in this new legislation. I would love to see him kept out of his territory and his land in Northern Ireland. Please confirm that he can be.

Theresa May: I appreciate the eagerness with which the hon. Lady rises to refer to that case, but I have to say to her that I am not going to comment on a particular case. As the Minister indicated earlier, however, the Bill is not, of course, restricted in the type of terrorism it refers to, and it does refer to those who have taken part in terrorist-related activity outside the UK, but I emphasise that situations would be looked at case by case, so this is not a power that will automatically be applied to any individual who satisfies those criteria. It is a matter of looking on a case-by-case basis to determine where it is appropriate to apply this power.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said, particularly about our compliance with our own national and international legal obligations. One anxiety that has been expressed about this measure is that a person could be particularly vulnerable during the period before they might return, if they are located in a country whose human rights record is inadequate. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might focus on that issue, because my understanding has been that consular protection would remain for such an individual in exactly the same way as for somebody whose passport was still working.

Theresa May: I am very happy to respond to that point. We as a country take the issue of human rights responsibilities very seriously in dealing with other countries and their treatment of individuals, but the individual would remain a British citizen and, notwithstanding that their passport had been cancelled and they had to apply for the permit to return, as a British citizen consular facilities would be available to them in those circumstances.

Frank Dobson: How would the person concerned prove to the British consular service that they were the person they claimed to be?

Theresa May: In such circumstances, the passport will probably still be in the individual’s possession, although it will have been cancelled in the sense of its ability to be used to provide access to the United Kingdom, so I would expect them to have that document available to provide that proof.
	On the points made about the individual being in another country, if an individual subject to an order attempts to travel to the UK, we will work closely with the host country and consider appropriate action. This may include detention pending deportation action, but only where appropriate under the laws of the other country, and, again, where appropriate, UK police officers will escort the individual back to the UK.
	We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in particular France and Turkey, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. The problem of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq and then seeking to return home is one we share with many of our international partners, and so far these discussions have been constructive.
	Once in the UK, the police may interview the individual in order to explore their activities abroad. We may then subsequently require them to engage with a programme, potentially comprising reporting, notification of change of address and de-radicalisation activities.
	I turn now to the amendments tabled by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and her colleagues. New clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 all require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a TEO. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—indeed, it appears to have been copied so directly that the right hon. Lady may want to reconsider the title of new clause 9, which refers to the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I suspect might be an error.
	As the Minister with responsibility for national security, it is right that I, as Home Secretary, and not the courts, impose an order of this kind. As I have said, this is a discretionary power that will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact. With oversight of all other national security and counter- terrorism matters, I am best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a TEO is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat we face. For the same reasons, to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.
	We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power. A TEO does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK, and the in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. There is therefore no need for a requirement to apply to the courts before imposing an order, and it will of course remain open to an individual to apply for judicial review of the decision to impose an order.

Caroline Lucas: The way the Home Secretary is describing how people can respond to a TEO suggests they would be able to access legal services. It does not take into account that they might be in a failed state, for example, or be being controlled by others or not have sufficient money. Does she not accept that in those circumstances, a TEO could actually mean a loss of intelligence about the suspect’s whereabouts and a loss of control?

Theresa May: But we are talking about an individual who, having had a TEO placed on them, attempts to travel to the UK, at which point they would have to apply for a permit to return and the arrangements for them to be accompanied by a police officer could be put in place. I recognise that there could be some circumstances in which a person might not have immediate access to the legal review, but they would be able to get it at the point at which they chose to return to the UK. This is about having the ability to ensure that certain people return to the UK on our terms, and that it is a managed return.

Frank Dobson: When would such an order become valid—when it was served on the person concerned? How would the British officials involved identify the person in order to serve the order on them? Would the process be triggered only if the person sought to come to this country?

Theresa May: A temporary exclusion order will be in place, and it will come into effect when it is served or deemed to be served on an individual. The arrangements relating to its being served are similar to those that we use for certain immigration rules relating to people outside the country. The TEO will come into effect when it is served or deemed to be served.
	I was about to talk about how the carriers will know whether to carry someone, because that subject has been mentioned in some of the other new clauses. On the question of whether the courts or the Home Secretary should make the decision, the Government and I are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this temporary exclusion power and, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that the Secretary of State is best placed to ensure that it is used in that way. I would hope, therefore, that the shadow Home Secretary will not press her new clauses to a vote.
	Opposition Members have also tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendment 14, which seek to make provision for “notification and managed return orders”. These would be orders imposed on a carrier such as an airline to notify the Secretary of State that a specified individual intended to travel to the UK and to notify the date, time and location of that individual’s arrival in the UK. Carriers already provide advance passenger information to the Government’s border system. That information enables the current authority-to-carry scheme to operate and, similarly, it will underpin new schemes under clause 18 of the Bill. When an individual intending to travel to the UK is a person who is inadmissible to the UK, the national border targeting centre will contact the carrier to refuse authority to carry the individual to the UK. The Government intend that individuals who are subject to temporary exclusion orders will be a class of passengers in respect of whom authority to carry must be sought by carriers, under a new authority-to-carry scheme.
	The proposal that a carrier should be required to tell the Secretary of State that a specified individual intends to travel to the UK implies that every carrier operating to the UK needs to know the details of every individual liable to a managed return. Disclosing to carriers around the world the details of individuals reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the UK is unnecessary. The Government hold and maintain those details, and we match them against information provided by carriers. We know from our experience of planning for and operating the current authority-to-carry scheme that carriers much prefer the Government to do the matching. It is for the Government to take the responsibility for getting that right and making the right decisions, which can result in individuals being prevented from travelling to the UK or, under the Bill, being liable to temporary exclusion and a managed return.
	Equally, the new clause providing for penalties to be imposed on carriers that fail to notify the Secretary of State when a specified individual is travelling to the UK is unnecessary. Criminal penalties are already in place for carriers that fail to provide passenger and crew information when required to do so, and there is provision in schedule 2 to the Bill to complement those provisions with civil penalties.
	Finally, amendments 15 and 16 relate to the interpretation of the temporary exclusion measure. The first of those amendments would impact on our ability to prosecute
	an individual for breaching a temporary exclusion order. The second would prevent us from correctly implementing a temporary exclusion order, should a host country seek lawfully to expel the individual under powers other than deportation. Both amendments would seriously jeopardise key fundamentals of the policy and, perhaps, would not produce the result intended by the Opposition.
	In the light of what I have said, I hope that those who have tabled new clauses and amendments will see that they are unnecessary and will not press them to a vote. This is a necessary power that will be important in enabling us to mange the return of those who have undertaken terrorist activity outside the UK. I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate power.

Lady Hermon: The UK authorities will have an obligation to let the Home Office know about the passenger lists in relation to individuals returning to the United Kingdom, but can the Home Secretary reassure the Committee that she will work closely with her Irish counterpart to ensure that the Irish Government keep similar information about those who are suspected of terrorism abroad? We must ensure that there is close co-operation on the two lists, which might contain the details of highly suspicious individuals coming back into Ireland and indirectly back into the UK through Northern Ireland.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes an important point, given our relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the operation of the common travel area. I can assure her that we work very closely with the Irish Government on the necessary information exchange between us, to ensure that the common travel area could not be—and, in general, is not—a means by which people can access the UK when we do not wish them to do so.
	As I was saying, this is a necessary and proportionate power and, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is entirely appropriate to introduce a power that will enable us to disrupt and mange the return of a number of individuals who have been involved in terrorist-related activity outside the UK.

David Hanson: I should like to speak to the amendments and new clauses standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her explanation of the measures in the Bill, which are worthy of discussion today. We have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 to provide a supportive narrative to the one that the Home Secretary has put forward. The new clauses and amendments taken together form some of the options that could support the control of terror suspects who are at our border in the UK rather than at a foreign port. They provide a mechanism for the issuing of a notification and managed return order, which would be similar to the measure proposed by the Home Secretary but with a slightly different emphasis.
	It is important that we recognise the threat posed by British citizens travelling abroad to participate in terror camps or to join the fight with ISIS in the middle east. The threat from ISIS is serious, and the Government need to do more to prevent young people from being groomed and radicalised to go and fight, and, using the
	measure in clause 1, to deal with such people when they try to return, having left the country to take part in such activity.
	That threat is still live. On 21 October, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, was quoted as saying that five Britons were travelling to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS every week. The Government’s own information states that more than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria and that as many as 250 are now seeking to return. Self-evidently, we need a mechanism to protect the British citizen and to deal with those who wish to return. It is also vital that we are able to deal with people we know to be involved in these activities but who are unaware that we know about them. There is a synergy between what we are trying to achieve and what the Government are proposing. We particularly think there may be practical difficulties with the Bill in relation to individuals at foreign ports returning to the UK, and I would welcome the Home Secretary’s view.
	The blanket exile proposal—I know the Home Secretary has not used that phrase—was referred to by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, as an
	“announcement waiting for a policy”
	when it was made. He was worried, and still has some worries, about whether it is legally and practically workable. We now have plans before us that, at first sight, appear closer to managed return than exile, but I wonder how they work in practice. If the aim of the policy is to keep dangerous individuals out of the country and then, ultimately, to manage their return, we need to explore real issues about that, not least what happens when individuals do not choose to apply for consent to come back—or indeed when they do choose to do that. The Home Secretary has touched on this, but what happens to individuals in particular countries? Would Turkey be happy to detain, potentially for months on end, a Briton suspected of illegally fighting for a terrorist organisation if he or she turned up at Ankara airport but was banned from departing to the UK? What options are in place for that? It is not clear whether the British Government have negotiated agreements with particular countries and whether they intend to do that on a case-by-case basis. What provision is in place—if it is not detention—to stop an individual who finds themselves faced with an order at the airport taking an alternative course of action, either returning to the host country in a different way, or returning and leaving for another country, not the UK? There is a practical argument as to what happens under the Bill to individuals in whom the Government have an interest.
	Our new clause 4 seeks to examine an alternative model, which could work in parallel with the Government’s proposals but gives an opportunity for a managed return. We have tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6, and the consequential amendments, which we are happy to look at and to reflect on, given what the Home Secretary has said about them. There is an argument to be made that the Government’s measure is too blunt a tool, in that it either prevents people from coming back or allows them to return. A more graduated response would give the security services and the Government much greater choice in how they want to approach each individual. Our notification and managed return orders proposal provides an alternative that gives security to the Government and takes effective action against individuals in whom
	the Government have an interest, but does so by allowing them to return to the UK and be managed in the UK, as opposed to leaving us facing some practical difficulties elsewhere.
	Our approach would require carriers to provide advance notice of travel bookings for certain named individuals in whom the Government have an interest, and that is well and good. It would allow the British authorities to have advance knowledge and notice of suspects’ travel plans so that arrangements could be made for police interview or arrest at the port or border immediately on their return to the UK. If that model were used as well, it would in part transfer the procedure that the Government are trying to achieve in a foreign port to a UK port. At that point, interviews could be undertaken and action could be taken against an individual, and we could also ensure that we had dealt with an individual of interest to the UK Government in the UK That could be an alternative model.

Dominic Grieve: Is not one potential problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal, which is in many ways perfectly reasonable in structure, that it does not prevent the individual from continuing to travel abroad between third countries? If the UK Government reasonably suspect that somebody is involved in terrorism, ensuring that person’s managed return—an act of a responsible Government—to this country is perhaps a priority. Is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would enable such a person to continue using their passport abroad, because the carrier would have no responsibility to give notification of travel between different countries?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

Julian Smith: How would the right hon. Gentleman get around the Home Secretary’s comments about the security implications of his model—giving out data to carriers that could compromise British national security?

David Hanson: We would be looking to do that in a number of circumstances anyway; data are already given to carriers about individuals. Under the Government’s model, information would also be provided to the carrier that the individual was of interest to the UK Government.

Theresa May: On the face of it, this may not look like a significant point, but it is. There is a very real difference between giving a list of a large number of people to a
	carrier and saying, “If any of these people travel, please tell us” and looking at the carrier’s information and saying, “This individual shall not be allowed to travel.” The amount of information about individuals that the carrier holds is very different under the Government’s proposal; much more information about individuals would be held by the carriers under the Opposition’s proposal, and that provides less protection for the individuals.

David Hanson: Again, these are matters of genuine debate and interest. The point I make to the Home Secretary is that this is entirely in her gift. Under the model we are proposing, her model is not being deleted from the Bill. It is still there to provide the ability to say to carriers, “If Mr X or Miss X turns up at Schiphol airport, we wish you to take action against them and exercise the powers in the Bill.” I could have turned the television on at any time in the past month and seen the names of individuals that we know have travelled abroad—individuals that are publicly travelling abroad and that relatives have said have travelled abroad. It is quite possible for the Home Secretary not to make these two possibilities mutually exclusive. The issue is simply—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Security and Immigration wants to back up his boss and intervene, I am happy to allow him to do so. The debate is about the practical difficulties of the Home Secretary’s proposals, which are to have people sign to say that they will come back under managed return, to have detention or to stop carriers at ports. Are they the sole way to deal with every case that is brought before the Home Secretary’s notice? We are trying to provide at least one alternative for consideration.
	Before I move on, may I say to the Home Secretary: well spotted on our deliberate error? We did put terrorism prevention and investigation measures at the top of one new clause. As she has noticed, we modelled the court procedure on the basis of her own legislation on TPIMs. Taken together, new clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 have the effect of creating a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go in order to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order under the proposals in the Bill. As has been said in our previous discussions, there is currently no judicial process before a TEO can be awarded.
	David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, gave evidence on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. According to media reports and the transcript, he was sceptical about the imposition of the proposed temporary exclusion orders against suspected jihadist fighters. He said:
	“If the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM she has to go to a court first and if the court says she’s got it wrong, it will say so.”
	There is a mechanism and judicial oversight for that. The principle is the same in relation to temporary exclusion orders. We must look carefully to see whether the power requires the intervention of the court at any stage or whether it is envisaged as something that the Home Secretary can impose. That is a real debate for this House to have. The Home Secretary has the power
	to impose an exclusion order on an individual under the Bill if it becomes law. She would also have that power under our proposals in new clause 4. Would it be better for her to have that power and have it judicially overseen by a court procedure, so that we can ensure that we have independent scrutiny of what the Home Secretary does? That is not our suggestion, but the suggestion discussed by Mr Anderson as the terrorism overseer.
	The language used in new clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 mirrors precisely—almost too precisely—that used in the Government’s own TPIM legislation. I hope that the Government can accept—if not today, perhaps during the passage of the Bill—that the procedure to go through to award a temporary exclusion order under our clause would be sound, fair and efficient in the same way that TPIMs can be on the same legislative basis.

Julian Smith: The rights being removed under the exclusion orders are nowhere near the same as those being removed under TPIMs, so the need for executive dynamism and an ability to move quickly should trump the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

David Hanson: It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.
	However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.
	In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely
	like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.
	It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.
	On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.
	However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information
	with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.
	There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.
	That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.
	As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.
	However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.
	Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

Frank Dobson: As the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency and constituents experienced the bombs on the tube at Russell square and on the bus at Tavistock square, I am second to no one in my desire to prevent terrorism from taking place in this country. It behoves all of us to do whatever we can to protect people in this country from terrorism and not to have terrorists on the loose, whether they are home-grown and have not been abroad, foreigners who come here, or British citizens returning to Britain. Those British citizens have rights and duties. One of their most important rights is the right of abode in this country as a citizen, but they also have a duty not to break our law or, as I understand it, international law.
	The British Government also have rights and duties in this regard: a right to enforce the law, a duty to comply with the rule of law, and a duty to protect all our citizens, whoever they may be and wherever they may be. If British citizens abroad are suspected of terrorism by British officialdom—by the British Government and their agencies—then the British Government have a duty to bring them to justice, but in the process of doing so, they cannot stop them being treated as British citizens.
	Temporary exclusion orders are in danger of neither protecting people’s fundamental rights nor getting people brought to justice. A person suspected by the security services, and then by the Home Secretary, of being a threat to security is either guilty of it or not guilty, but whichever they are, these things apply. That person is then to be served with an order, or “deemed” to be served with one; I am not quite sure what “deemed” means in these circumstances. If they are served with such an order, one effect will be to tip them off that if they come back to this country they are very likely to be prosecuted for terrorist offences. That may cause them to wish not to come back but to disappear. Allowing a British citizen who is suspected of terrorism to disappear—in fact, in certain circumstances, possibly to be provoked into disappearing—does not seem to be a particularly good idea.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, there is then the question of somebody who has been fingered by Britain as a terror suspect subsequently being picked up by the security service of the country in which they are located. This does not
	quite amount to rendition, because we are not sending them there; it is a sort of stationary rendition whereby people are left in a place where they may be in danger.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend think that this will lead to a whole cadre of virtually stateless people who will congregate together in one place, and that will be a problem for absolutely everybody rather than one state? Surely, as he rightly says, a state has a responsibility towards its own nationals.

Frank Dobson: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The whole proposition of exclusion orders seems to be predicated on the idea, first, that these people are totally rational; and secondly, that their greatest desire is to come back to Britain. Neither of those things will necessarily be the case, because some very odd people are going to be involved.

Alan Beith: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in danger of attacking the idea that was originally presented rather than that contained in the Bill, which is much closer to being a process of determining that, if somebody who is thought to be dangerous comes back to this country, we can control, monitor and supervise them. Surely that is a more sensible objective, which the original, apparent objective of making people stateless would not have been.

Frank Dobson: I agree that the Government have modified their position since the first daft statements were made—things have been made more rational—but I do not think they have come up with the best proposition. The proposal for notification and managed return orders may not be perfect by any means, but it is a better proposition than that suggested by the Government.
	The peculiarity of the functions of British consular services when a person is suspected is extraordinary. The consular services will serve people with an order and then, if somebody else nicks them and puts them in prison or starts torturing them, the same consular services will turn around and start looking after their interests. That seems to me to be at the odd end of the functions of a consular service.

David Winnick: If this measure does not succeed, what would my right hon. Friend say in response to the powerful argument made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield about the judicial process? Would there not be a very strong case that a court should decide on temporary exclusion orders?

Frank Dobson: That might be an improvement, but the practicalities of what happens in Turkey or Syria are not changed by a court decision or endorsement here.
	What the process does not do—I would have thought that we all want to see this done—is bring people under our jurisdiction, prosecute them and, if they are found guilty, jail them. Surely that should be the main objective of Britain’s policy. The process is likely to get them picked up, but not by us: they will be picked up by somebody who may or may not be one of our allies. I believe, therefore, that the basic Government proposal undermines and interferes with their fundamental rights of abode in this country and it does not achieve what we want, which is to see terrorists brought to justice. The
	proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would address both issues, so it would be an improvement.
	The human right of a British citizen to abode in this country is not some fancy right dreamt up in Brussels or Strasbourg, and it has not been created by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a right of citizens to which Gladstone and Disraeli would have subscribed, not to mention Palmerston, who, after all, sent a gunboat to Greece to protect the interests of an exceedingly dodgy Maltese who probably had committed a crime. There is nothing new about this right and we need to be very careful abut doing anything that would undermine it.
	I believe that notification and managed return orders do not deny the fundamental rights at all; do not expose people to being picked up by the Turkish authorities and still less by the Syrian authorities; involve the identification of the suspects but do not tip them off that they will be arrested if they come back to this country; which the temporary exclusion orders do; bring the suspects within British jurisdiction; and will result, if those people are guilty, in their being prosecuted and punished, which is what we want. We do not want them roaming around. If they come back here and are guilty of what they are suspected of, they will be picked up when they arrive at the port, the airport or St Pancras station. That is what we want to happen and it will not happen under the exclusion orders.

David Davis: I had not intended to speak today, but I have been sitting here getting rather more uncomfortable about some aspects of the proposal. I do not propose to go into the complex practical issues, which were well laid out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who gave thoughtful input, as ever, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They outlined the issues and complexities very well and I suspect that those complexities will best be addressed by negotiation between those on the two Front Benches, which is not something I often recommend.
	What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference. Over time, I have become progressively concerned about the accretion of fairly absolute power to the state in counter-terrorism policy. Absolute power is pretty important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that these measures did not impinge on people’s liberties in the same way as TPIMs might, but I am afraid that the impingement is pretty sizeable. I do not necessarily disapprove of it at all, but it should be exercised with a degree of judicial care.
	These accretions of power have come about since the late 1980s and the 1990s when we avowed the various security services that had up until then not been recognised in public policy, or that were at least not in the public domain. At the time, it seemed quite reasonable for the Crown prerogative to be used as a method of giving warrants and of enacting the state’s will to protect the public. I took the 1994 Bill on the Secret Intelligence Service through the House. We did not foresee the level of use—the number of warrants used and the level of power being exercised—that is now necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat.
	What is more, we did not give much thought to how such power might be abused—not that it is at the moment, but it might be in the future—or how many errors might occur, which does happen. We had at the back of our mind a model of accountability that, frankly, does not work. The Minister for Security and Immigration will be familiar with the number of times on which he and I have had exchanges that amount to my asking him a question and his writing back something like, “I never comment on security matters.” That is not a particularly good form of accountability for any mechanism.
	My concern is that along with progressive secrecy, secret courts and all the other things we now have, the weak accountability—

Julian Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I am coming to the end of my speech.
	The level of secrecy, the low level of accountability and the power accruing to the Government, which is enormous when we think about our historic liberties in this country—this is in no way a criticism of the Home Secretary, as I would say the same of any Home Secretary, any Foreign Secretary or any Secretary of State—are why I am attracted by new clause 11. I do not know whether it will be pressed to a vote tonight, or whether it will come back on Report, but I ask the Government closely to consider the TPIM model. It is very sensible and those on the Opposition Front Bench have made a good case for it.

Caroline Lucas: I want to say a few words about the amendments tabled in my name. The tone of the debate has been useful and thoughtful and I have agreed with much of what others on both sides of the House have said. We are all trying to grasp our way towards something that provides robust security while guaranteeing human rights. My worry about the Government’s proposals on temporary exclusion orders is that they get that balance slightly wrong. There is a significant risk that, for many of the reasons that were outlined by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), they will, rather perversely, be counter-productive. I therefore think that the alternative system of notification and managed return orders has a lot to commend it, although the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) caused me to think again about how it would work in practice. There is a lot to explore here.
	I come at this issue not just as a representative of a party that has often spoken out about the way in which successive Governments have used the threat of terrorism to justify the undermining of hard-won civil liberties and human rights, but as the MP for a city that was once home to two brothers who have just lost their lives fighting in Syria. Jaffar Deghayes, who was aged 17, and his brother Abdullah, who was aged 18, died in separate incidents earlier this year after leaving the UK in the belief that taking up arms against the murderous Assad regime was the right thing to do. They might have been typical of the kind of young idealists to whom the Bill will apply, had they not been killed, but instead tried to return home.
	Their father, Abubaker Deghayes, still lives in Brighton and I would like to share his response to the proposals we are debating:
	“The strategy you are using with our sons does not work. You are criminalising them just out of the fear they might become a threat to this country. Do not push them to be radicalised, used by groups like Isis who are out for revenge and thirst for blood.”
	His advice bears listening to. Not only does his bitter personal experience give him insight into how we might better respond to the growing number of British citizens leaving home to fight abroad, but his position is, in many ways, backed up by evidence.
	If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, which clearly it is, it might well be counter-productive to condemn individuals to being exiled from their families and friends. Evidence from countries such as Sweden and Denmark clearly indicates that families and friends can play an essential role in challenging and ultimately overturning extremists’ beliefs. I know that that is not the subject of what we are discussing, but I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the whole issue of de-radicalisation tomorrow. I will say no more about it now because the Chair, Mr Crausby, would stop me, but this issue is related to the amendments on alternative de-radicalisation programmes that have been tabled for debate tomorrow.
	If return is denied to those who, for practical or other reasons, have been unable to apply for the permit that removes the temporary exclusion order, we will run into problems. I was not convinced by the Home Secretary’s response to my saying that people may well not be in a position to access legal advice or may not have sufficient funds to jump through all the hoops that the TEO requires them to jump through, particularly if they are in a failed or failing state. Such people will effectively be denied the right to return.
	The Home Secretary’s plans assume that the people in question will know that they are subject to a TEO. That cannot be guaranteed, given that many of those who are targeted will be in countries that are suffering from internal armed conflict. They will not just be sitting behind a letter box—it is much more complicated than that.
	If somebody does have the means to apply for a permit to allow them to return, they will have to attend an interview. Failure to do so, either because they are unable to do so or are prevented from doing so, could result in their being refused the right to return.

Julian Smith: I am trying to keep up with the hon. Lady. What are the circumstances that will make it impossible for people to apply to the consulate or somewhere else to come back to the UK? She is making a number of assertions that she is not backing up.

Caroline Lucas: I do not think that I am making assertions. I am asking questions about whether it will be possible for people in all circumstances to go through very formal processes at a time when they may well be living in a culture of fear and when, by definition, severe conflict is going on. Such people might already have been fingered as someone who is trying to leave and be at particular risk of attack from others. I am describing a rather more complex situation than someone simply using the postal system, knowing what they have
	to do next and then marching down to the consulate and doing it. The reality on the ground is likely to be far more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	If someone does complete the process successfully, the Home Secretary will have what is defined as “reasonable time” to let them come home. I am concerned that, as far as I can see, there is no indication of what that time would be. The period of enforced temporary residence in another country could effectively trap British citizens in countries where jihadi groups have a strong presence, such as Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq. As the human rights group Liberty states:
	“Those who are equivocal are more likely to be pushed towards terrorist factions by the imposition of executive led punishments and enforced periods in close proximity to such groups.”
	If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, why would we take steps to alienate individuals by condemning them to exile when some of them—I quite understand that this does not apply to all of them—may simply have made a terrible mistake? They may have been horrified by the bloodshed and barbarism that they have seen and want to find a way to come home.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has referred a number of times to “exile” for the individuals concerned. We have to be absolutely clear that the provision will not exile an individual or prevent them from having the right to return to the United Kingdom. It will mean that when they return to the United Kingdom, it will be on a managed basis under terms that the Government set.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Home Secretary, and I accept that she is technically correct, but I am describing a situation in which, because a person has not been able to follow the process that she described, they cannot find a way back and feel as though they were in exile.
	If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, it is surely sensible to ensure that individuals who definitely pose a threat are somewhere where it is easier to keep an eye on them, investigate them, arrest them, charge them and prosecute them, should the evidence warrant it. Surely we want suspected terrorists close at hand so that we can take targeted action against them rather than allow them to roam who knows where doing who knows what. As the old adage goes, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer”. Moreover, if someone is intent on carrying out a terrorist attack on British soil, does the Home Secretary really believe that having to apply for a permit and attend an interview will act as any kind of deterrent or obstacle?
	The Government’s scheme does have one element to recommend it, which is the steps taken to ensure that agencies and the police know of an individual’s location should they need to place him or her under surveillance. That comes from the stipulation that someone return on a specific flight to a specific airport. However, I argue that the same outcomes could be secured by placing a simple notification requirement on carriers, as set out in new clauses 4 to 6. Crucially, as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras described, that approach would not automatically alert a terror suspect to the fact that they had come to the notice of the authorities and that their return was being monitored. I argue that it would instead facilitate a targeted and
	intelligence-led response, and that the ability to undertake close surveillance of suspects would be maximised, with a view to arrest and prosecution. The option under existing counter-terrorism powers of interviewing a suspect on their arrival back in the UK would also be retained, and there would be further options as appropriate.
	I have some concerns about the human rights aspects of the proposals on TEOs, but I also believe that they could end up being counter-productive from a security perspective. They will not provide the robust level of security that people in Britain have a right to expect.

George Howarth: The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and now the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have all argued, from slightly different standpoints, that the ideal situation is to have some sort of judicial process. I do not think anybody could argue against that from a democratic and human rights perspective. In cases in which there is the possibility of a prosecution or other judicial process to bring about the type of outcome that we desire, that is clearly the preferred option.
	As I see it, the choice is between the measures in the Bill—temporary exclusion orders with a managed return—or a form of judicial process that might be even worse than that. Perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but in almost every case I can envisage that would be affected by this process, the information that will determine the trigger of a temporary exclusion order would be based on intelligence—she is not shaking her head in disagreement, so I will assume assent on that point. If that is the case, any form of judicial process to verify or authorise that process would inevitably involve wholly or partly closed proceedings. It would be impossible to give evidence from intelligence in open court for all the reasons that we have repeatedly debated. Although that is the ideal situation, given the presumption that in most, if not all, of these cases the evidence will be intelligence based, it will be difficult to rely solely on a court proceeding, no matter how it was constructed or held, other than on the basis that it would be either closed, or at very least semi-closed.

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful and long-standing expert in this area, and he is right to say that it will be a Special Immigration Appeals Commission style process. In the past, however, SIAC-style processes with control orders and TPIMs have prevented quite egregious errors—he will remember the case of MI5 presenting the same passport two weeks running against two different suspects, and that being caught and stopped by the SIAC. My concern is not just about the increase in power; it is also the error rate and the fact that someone can be denied serious rights without a proper review. The right hon. Gentleman is right that a SIAC-style process would be necessary. He knows I am not fond of that, but it is better than nothing.

George Howarth: I think I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but none of that changes the fact that, regardless of the quality of the submission to the SIAC court, some intelligence material would be required. Even from a justice point of view that is not an ideal situation, and that is a problem.

Julian Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as well as the intelligence issue, the British people want the state to act in a nimble and dynamic way, as long as measures are proportionate, against one of the biggest threats to our security in decades? I suspect he acknowledges that broader point given his role on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

George Howarth: I was coming on to talk about the sorts of cases that we might be confronted with. If my remarks answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, so be it. If not, I am sure he will intervene again.
	Temporary exclusion orders and the managed return process, as the Home Secretary described it, is seen as the alternative to a judicial process that for various practical reasons would either be not very just, or at least closed or partly closed. It would therefore be impractical and difficult to judge whether proceedings were fair or otherwise for anyone who was not involved, and even for some of those who were. In principle the provisions in clause 2(1) are probably acceptable, but I have a couple of issues—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—about how they will work in practice. Perhaps one way of looking at it would be to give examples of the kinds of cases that we are likely to see with people returning from Syria or Iraq. For convenience, I have bracketed them under three headings. They are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that in some cases all three will apply, and in others just one.
	The first group identified, supported by research, are those who return traumatised. We have all seen graphic examples of horrific acts that have taken place. Some of those returning traumatised will have witnessed beheadings and other atrocities carried out by those they have fought alongside. They may have had mental issues before they went out to fight with ISIS—or whichever group they were with—but it is certainly possible, because of that trauma, that they will have mental health issues when they come back.
	The second category has been well documented by researchers in touch with people in Syria and Iraq: it is those who have gone out for idealistic reasons. They may have understandably opposed the Assad regime, felt there was a humanitarian cause and gone out there to do their bit for democracy and the liberation of the people in that part of the world. There is no doubt that some of them will become disillusioned. They may be quite easy to reintegrate back into society. They have seen the alternative and perhaps will have come to recognise the merits of our democratic system, the rule of law, human rights and so on.

Frank Dobson: I wonder whether, when the Home Secretary replies, she could make clear who, in relation to Syria, would be regarded as a terrorist suspect. Would someone who is not a jihadist but has gone out to fight against the Assad regime, sympathising with and supporting the British Government, be regarded as a terrorist? There may even be a few who have gone out to fight for the Assad Government. Would they be regarded as terrorists? It is not at all clear.

George Howarth: I think I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, although I rather suspect it was aimed more at the Home Secretary than at me. Some fighters out there are involved in ISIS or another group and they went out to fight for a completely different cause from the one they have ended up fighting for. It is literally that complicated.
	On the disillusionment front, we will talk about the Prevent strategy tomorrow. I suspect there are some means by which Prevent, or a revised form of Prevent, would be appropriate for those who have come back disillusioned and want to reintegrate back into society.
	I am sure nobody will disagree that the most difficult group are those who were radicalised in the UK, adopted a particular kind of Salafist view and went out specifically in pursuit of jihad. They think still that they are out there creating a caliphate, which is the whole meaning behind what ISIS are doing. Some will return not because they have stopped believing in that particular ideology, but because they want to resume their activities in the UK. That is the most difficult group.
	To conclude, I would be grateful if the Home Secretary answered a couple of questions. I realise it is difficult in an open forum such as this, but will she indicate what assessment will be carried out of the individuals concerned to determine which of those three categories—it might be all three—they fit into? Will the conditions applied to a managed return relate to that assessment? If she could say a bit more about that, it might give people greater confidence that the process she is proposing is preferable to a judicial process that, because it is based on intelligence, might at worst be completely closed and at best partly closed.

John McDonnell: I seek some clarity on clause 9 on pages 5 and 6.
	We know of two young men who have left my constituency to fight—we believe—in Syria, and we worked with one of the families, with the assistance of the Government, to enable them to go to Turkey to try and convince the young man to return. When I read his letters to his parents, I found them to be extremely sincere. He thought he was going to Syria to fight against the Assad regime—he called it “jihad”—to protect people being bombarded by the regime and to prevent what he considered to be war crimes. I also found him sincere in his hope that his parents would not be distressed. It was a rather sad leaving letter. At one point, he explained to his parents that there was still a few bob left on his Oyster card for them to use. It was a short, extremely moving letter from a young man in his late teens, early 20s, explaining his intentions. I believe that many young men, and possibly women, have gone out with what they and others would consider to be the best of intentions: to engage in a military action to protect people from the abuse of human rights by a dictatorial regime that, as we now know, was using gas and other weapons against its own people.
	I am trying to find a mechanism to encourage people to come back and be reintegrated into our society because I think that a lot of people who went out realise they made a mistake; they might have thought their intentions virtuous in the first instance, but I think
	many of them would now acknowledge that they made a mistake and it has gone wrong. Clause 9, however, introduces significant offences. It states:
	“An individual subject to a temporary exclusion order is guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the individual returns to the United Kingdom in contravention of the restriction on return specified in the order.”
	It would be extremely helpful if the Home Secretary gave us greater clarity, either now or later, about what a reasonable excuse would be. I would not want practicalities—for example, a person not knowing they had an exclusion order against them—to be an issue. Clause 9(4) states:
	“In a case where a relevant notice has not actually been given to an individual, the fact that the relevant notice is deemed to have been given to the individual under regulations under section 10 does not…prevent the individual from showing that lack of knowledge of the temporary exclusion order, or of the obligation imposed under section 8, was a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section.”
	We need to be clear about what a reasonable excuse would be in this instance.
	Many of these individuals already led chaotic lives, but they are now in a zone of operations that in itself is chaotic, and I think that many will want to return. However, the fact that there is uncertainty about what would be a reasonable excuse for returning—of getting on that plane and coming back—and the risk of up to five years in prison or a summary conviction of up to 12 months could act as a disincentive.
	I think we should be easing the path as best we can to as many as possible of those who want to come back to be de-radicalised or rehabilitated. In some instances, unless we are absolutely clear about the nature of these offences and, in particular, about what would be construed as a reasonable excuse for return when the person does not know whether a temporary exclusion order is in place, it could provide a disincentive to carrying out the purpose that the Government, the Opposition and others want to happen—the process of managed return.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall speak briefly because I know the Home Secretary is about to reply. Following the speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about the general direction in which anti-terror law has gone, I want to make two essential points. Ever since I have been a Member, we seem to have had some piece of anti-terror legislation before us every year. I assume that there is a very large department in the Home Office that is writing next year’s anti-terror Bill and the one for the year after that. I am sure there will be an ambition to do that.
	The theme that runs through all such legislation is an attempt to give greater and greater executive powers to the Home Secretary, which are usually rowed back by a combination of the courts and parliamentary action; then, a year or two later, we come back to yet another counter-terror Bill in respect of which the Home Secretary, no doubt with the very best of intentions, is nevertheless given a high degree of executive power. It is no part of our duty as elected Members of Parliament to undermine an independent judicial process and hand executive powers to Ministers, on the basis of which they can either detain or exclude people under any process whatever. That is fundamental to what I understand our democracy to be.
	Although there is—ultimately, I suppose—some degree of judicial oversight when an excluded person finally comes back to this country, I would have thought that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) are surely true and important. If someone goes abroad, albeit on the basis of perhaps misguided notions about what they can do when they reach the zone of conflict to which they have gone, they will be there and will subsequently be prevented from returning. That might render them at risk of imprisonment by another judiciary, which might have much less concern for human rights than anyone here, and they could then be tortured and all kinds of terrible things could happen to them. Would the possession of British nationality on the part of someone affected in that way require the British Government to intervene on their behalf to stop them being tortured, given that the Government opposed their return to Britain in the first place? This whole process is full of many complications and contradictions, which I hope have been adequately thought through by the Home Secretary in introducing this legislation.
	Secondly, I want to note the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We are involved in a process of making subjective judgments about who goes where to fight for what, and for whom. My right hon. Friend made the point that if somebody goes to fight for ISIS in Syria—I wish they would not; I have no truck whatever with ISIS—they will be deemed to be a terrorist and a dangerous person. If they go to fight for the Syrian Government, I presume the same point applies, but if they fight for the free Syrian army, which is supported by the Americans and the British, and they do things as despicable as they would in any other force, are they then deemed to be all right? Do they then have to prove which particular force they joined in Syria’s three-way civil war?
	There is a further complication. If someone enters Syria from Turkey to fight with the Kurdish forces, having been taken there by the PKK, which is a listed terrorist organisation in Turkey, they would nevertheless be on the side of the Kurdish forces against the forces of the Syrian Government and against ISIS. There are an awful lot of contradictions surrounding how we decide who is a good fighter and who is a terrorist; who is struggling for liberation and who is a terrorist. There was a time when people involved in Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa were known as terrorists; they were later welcomed to this country as freedom fighters. Things can turn full circle.
	None of what I am saying is intended to give any succour, comfort or support to ISIS, but I feel that we should think about this rather more carefully and avoid the knee-jerk reaction of saying, “These are bad fighters and those are good fighters, so we will ban these and allow those in.”

George Howarth: My hon. Friend has already answered the question that I was going to ask, but I will make my point anyway. I am sure he agrees that there is no comparison between the barbaric acts that are being committed by members of ISIS and what was done by the freedom fighters in South Africa.

Jeremy Corbyn: Of course that is true. I have no truck with those who commit those barbaric acts, and nor does any other Member.
	Our job is to scrutinise legislation, and that is exactly what we are doing tonight. We can vote to change some of the amendments tonight, or we can return to the issues on Report. However, I hope the Home Secretary understands that a great many of us are deeply concerned about the principle of dealing with British nationals in this way, as we would be in relation to any other country. We are concerned about the long-term consequences: about what such treatment does to those people, and about the increased radicalisation of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about that.
	I have encountered young people who have been attracted to what ISIS is doing. They say that what the west did in Iraq and Afghanistan was appalling, and was questionably legal in the case of Afghanistan and definitely illegal in the case of Iraq. We are living with the consequences of the war on terror of 2001, and if we continue to try to create legal obstacles and make value judgments about people without considering the overall policy we are following, we will return to legislation such as this again and again, year after year.

Steven Baker: That is a humbling thing. It is, however, a lamentable fact that my constituent Omar Hussain appeared on the BBC to express considerable support for ISIS. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such people need to be subject to special measures when they return to the United Kingdom?

Jeremy Corbyn: I have no support for ISIS whatsoever, and obviously that should apply to someone who has committed crimes, but we should bear in mind that expressing a political point of view is not in itself an offence. The commission of a criminal act is clearly a different matter, but expressing a point of view, even an unpalatable one, is sometimes quite important in a democracy. We should be slightly cautious about announcing that we will start to deal with people on the basis of a general view that they have expressed. We should think seriously about where our foreign policy has brought us, and what our legislative position now is.

Steven Baker: I am very much inclined to agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the problem is that this particular individual expressed support for beheadings with a knife. I feel that the practical realities mean that we must take special measures in the case of such people.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would want that person to have some kind of treatment, or I would want measures of some kind to be taken, but expressing support for something and doing it are two rather different things.
	There are very unpleasant parallels in the British colonial past. I sat through the hearings in the High Court when the Mau Mau people were seeking compensation. The way in which they had been treated by the British Army in Kenya in 1955 was disgusting and disgraceful beyond belief. We are now going through a horrible, vile period in Syria. We must understand where we have come from and how we will get through this period without denying our own civil liberties and encouraging more people to join in this whole ghastly process.

Theresa May: This has been a constructive and well-informed debate. Some Members have raised practical questions and others have raised questions of principle, but it was
	the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) who brought home to us why we must look at the issue of our terrorism legislation when he explained that his own constituency had been affected by not the theory but the actuality of terrorism, and that people had lost their lives as a result. So this is not an academic discussion; we are talking about a real threat to this country, and we need to do everything we can to combat that.
	The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) talked about the balance between civil liberties and national security. I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties, but I would simply point out that this Government reviewed counter-terrorism legislation when we came in and took a number of steps such as reducing the period of pre-charge detention from 28 to 14 days, so we have been very conscious throughout of the need always to be aware of the freedoms we hold dear and the desire to ensure we can maintain those.
	I am grateful for the constructive tone adopted by most of those who spoke in the debate. There will of course be discussion of the details and consideration of how best to achieve our desired objective, but many of those who spoke recognised the legitimate aim of what the Government are doing. It is perfectly legitimate to try to ensure we can manage the return to this country of those who may pose a threat to the people of the UK.
	The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) talked about the complexity of the situation we are dealing with, particularly in relation to Syria and Iraq. People going out there, sometimes with the best of intentions, may find themselves being radicalised. People may go out to fight or work with one particular group but get caught up in fighting with other, more extreme terrorist organisations. So it is a very complex picture; I understand that.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of whether people would be looked at in categories, and described a number of categories. As I have said, individuals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Whether they meet the criteria set out in the Bill will be considered, and that will include looking at them in much the way he described, and putting in place the appropriate measures in relation to particular individuals. Of course, such considerations will be made in consultation with operational partners, notably the security services and the police, but that this will be done on a case-by-case basis is a very important element that people should remember.

George Howarth: My point in illustrating those categories is that the hope is that the conditions attached to the return would point individuals in the direction of prevention or some form of surveillance, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) accepted might be necessary. I was interested in those two things coming together.

Theresa May: I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman was making, and the intention is indeed that that will be done on a case-by-case basis—both the question whether there should be a TEO, and how that
	individual would be managed on their return to the United Kingdom. For some, it would be appropriate to look at further action when they return to the UK—for example, it could be right to put someone on a TPIM—or it might be appropriate for them to be put in the direction of some form of programme that helps to de-radicalise them. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of potential prosecution, too, and it may be that there is evidence and it is appropriate to prosecute somebody when they return. So we are talking about this being done on a case-by-case basis. I know that is a well-used phrase, but that is genuinely intended to operate in this instance.
	I hope that answers the point the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made in referring to her two constituents who had died in Syria. Of course we think of the father she quoted, who has seen his sons die in those circumstances. Again, I assure her that we would decide whether to impose a TEO on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, people will go out to Syria for a whole variety of reasons, some of them believing they are going for humanitarian purposes.
	The Government have given a clear message to everyone: if you are thinking of going out to Syria for humanitarian purposes, don’t go. There are better ways of helping the people of Syria than going out there and potentially getting caught up in the fighting and losing your life.
	I welcome the constructive approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who led for the official Opposition, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I want to respond to some of the points that they and others have raised. A number of Members spoke as though the Opposition’s notification and managed return proposals were an alternative to the Government’s proposals, but I think the right hon. Member for Delyn made it clear that they were in addition to our proposals. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked what would constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, that would ultimately be for the courts to decide. A reasonable excuse could involve circumstances in which an individual had inadvertently breached the terms of their permit to return to the UK for practical reasons—for example, when their plane had been diverted.

Frank Dobson: If a person who had been made the subject of an order that had been deemed to have been served came to this country without knowing that it had been served, would they have committed an offence?

Theresa May: I was about to come on to the issue of serving the order. It is set out in the Bill that the fact that someone does not know that an order has been served is not necessarily a sufficient excuse, but that is a matter that would be tested in the courts. They would be looking at the action that was to be taken in relation to a breach, and it would be for them to determine what a reasonable excuse would be. An order would be served in person whenever possible, but when that was not possible, we would seek to ensure that an individual was made aware of the order through other mechanisms. We might, for example, seek to serve it at the individual’s last known address or serve the order to file. As I said earlier, similar systems work effectively in other contexts, such as informing foreign nationals about decisions on their immigration status.

Frank Dobson: This reminds me of one of my constituents. He went to Somalia and then went to Djibouti, where he was arrested and handed over to the Americans. When he said he was a British citizen, he was told, “No, you’re not. The Home Secretary has taken your citizenship away.” He was unaware of that fact, but I gather that the order was deemed to have been served on him in Somalia because it had been sent to his mother’s address in Islington.

Theresa May: As I have said, when it is impossible to serve an order on an individual in person, it is standard practice to make every attempt to serve it in a way that ensures the information gets to them. Using their last known address is one way in which such decisions are served.

John McDonnell: Can we be clear on this point? Clause 9(4) states that when a relevant notice
	“has not actually been given to an individual, the fact that the relevant notice is deemed to have been given to the individual…does not…prevent the individual from showing that lack of knowledge of the temporary exclusion order…was a reasonable excuse”.
	To be frank, that will not be strong enough in many cases.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as I have just said to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, the point is that what is a reasonable excuse will be tested in the courts. I did not quote the exact words but I cited the spirit of the point in clause 9(4). As I say, that matter would be tested by the courts and it would be for them to determine whether or not what the hon. Gentleman describes constituted a reasonable excuse.
	Let me deal with two specific points about the Opposition proposals, the first of which relates to the process of information going to carriers for the notification and managed return order. The proposal works only because the full name and birth details of individuals are disclosed to all carriers. The existence of that list and any failure by any carrier to protect that data could expose a number of individuals to mistreatment, and we must not forget that some countries’ national airlines are state owned and operated. This goes to the point I made when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Delyn: there is a real difference between saying that the Government hold all the information, obtain it from the carriers through advance passenger information about individuals, carry out the matching, determine whether there is an individual for whom authority to carry should not be given and then give that information on that individual to the carrier, and the Opposition’s proposal, whereby information on a large number of individuals should be given to all carriers on the off chance that one of those individuals will attempt to travel with one of those carriers.
	That difference is important, and as I indicated in earlier remarks, what we have found in dealing with carriers is that they feel, as the Government do, that the responsibility for getting that matching process right in determining whether authority to carry should be given for an individual should rest with the Government. On requiring that notification from the carriers, the information
	as to who is being carried is already provided by carriers when they submit advance passenger information to the Government’s border system. But, as I say, it is then for the Government to determine whether one of those individuals is somebody against whom action should be taken through not providing the authority to carry.
	As part of the TEO, the individual’s passport will have been cancelled, which makes it much more difficult for them to travel through other countries. That point was made by a number of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. He, like a number of other hon. Members, mentioned the other issue I wish to deal with: whether or not the decision to impose a TEO should be for the courts or for the Secretary of State. Comparisons were made with TPIMs, where we have that judicial process in place, but even in that process the initial decision is taken by the Secretary of State. Arguments have been made in the past that the decision should be given over entirely to the courts, but I have been clear that it is important that such decisions, where we are imposing restrictions on an individual, are being taken by someone who is democratically elected and therefore accountable to the electorate—to the people—for them.
	As for whether or not there should then be a separate automatic court process in relation to the imposition of a TEO, this is about the operation of a royal prerogative in terms of the cancellation of a passport, and that operation currently does not have that judicial process inserted within it—the decision is taken by the Secretary of State. That is the first point to make. The second point is that the TPIMs have far more restrictions that can be imposed on an individual than would be imposed simply by the TEO. A number of hon. Members referred to the TEO in terms of taking away the right of abode for somebody in the UK, and I intervened on the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion in respect of her use of the term “exile”. This is not about saying to somebody that they are for ever exiled from the United Kingdom and cannot return. This is about not stopping somebody’s right of abode in the United Kingdom, but saying to an individual about whom there is concern that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity outside the UK that when they return they will do so on the basis of a process that the Government have put in place such that their return can be managed.

David Winnick: What makes some of us uneasy about temporary exclusion orders—I was certainly uneasy about them from the very beginning—is that excessive powers are being given without the individual having legal redress. I hope that one does not have to say that one is against terrorism and loathes every form of criminality, when we see what is happening with terrorism and what is happening in Australia. That does not alter the fact that these powers should be subject to some form of legal redress, and it is unfortunate that they will not be.

Theresa May: They are subject to a form of legal redress; it is called judicial review. The debate has not been about whether there is some form of legal redress available to individuals but about whether there should be an automatic court process after a decision has been made by the Secretary of State.

David Winnick: rose—

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene again.

David Winnick: The judicial process comes afterwards, and it can be very complex for the individual concerned. What I am saying is that if the Secretary of State is going to take powers such as temporary exclusion orders, those powers should be subject to a court order, and the arguments should be put in court. There may be some obvious restrictions for reasons that have been stated, but at least they are all part of living under the rule of law.

Theresa May: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to remove a passport from an individual—the royal prerogative power—is not subject to an automatic court process. This is more akin to that royal prerogative exercise in the removal of a passport than it is to the imposition of the sort of measures that can be within the terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

Jeremy Corbyn: Let us be clear: a judicial review is not an appeal; it is an examination of process. It is no more and no less than that. To call it a judicial oversight is really not correct.

Theresa May: The point is that there is a process in which the courts consider whether the decision by the Secretary of State to exercise the temporary exclusion order was reasonable. Let me come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). If we look at the difference between a royal prerogative power and the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the restriction on an individual that can be imposed through a TPIM is far greater than that imposed through the exercise of the royal prerogative power. This power of the temporary exclusion order is more akin to the royal prerogative power, which is why I believe that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate for the sort of measure that we are putting in place.
	As the Bill goes through its various stages in this House and the other place, there will be further discussion on the issues that have been raised by hon. Members today. What we are proposing is a new power, but it is both necessary and proportionate. As I have said before, it will not render anyone stateless. It will ensure that those who have been fighting abroad and who want to come back to the United Kingdom do so in a managed way and on our terms, and it is compliant with all our domestic and international legal obligations. I invite all those who have tabled amendments to withdraw them, and the Committee to agree that clauses 2 to 11 should stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 3 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Mel Stride.)
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1988 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 October, be approved.

Public Procurement

That the draft Single Source Contract Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.

Water Industry

That the draft Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 11 November, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Access to Co-operative Ground (Scunthorpe)

Nicholas Dakin: In presenting this petition, I would like to praise the excellent work of the Friends of Scunthorpe Fields and Open Spaces, particularly Chris Jury, Rick Loudon and Stuart Green, in campaigning to secure continued free access to Scunthorpe’s Co-operative ground and getting more than 1,500 people to show their concern by signing the petition. I would also like to welcome North Lincolnshire council’s recent willingness to recognise the strength of feeling on the matter.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County Constituency,
	Declares their objection to North Lincolnshire Council’s decision to deny the general public access to the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park in Scunthorpe by erecting a fence around the perimeter.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Lincolnshire Council to remove the fencing erected around the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park and allow free public access to the area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001412]

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (NORTH SOMERSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Dawn Primarolo: Dr Fox, I remind you that at 10 o’clock I will have to move the motion again. I am just warning you so that as you are warming up in your speech you appreciate what is going on.

Liam Fox: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Never having warmed up in less than two minutes, that should be something of a challenge.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to debate—a little earlier than expected tonight—what has increasingly become a total fiasco around housing needs in north Somerset. Let me begin by describing how we got to today’s absurd situation. As a result of the election of the coalition Government in 2010, greater decision making powers were returned to local councils, so North Somerset council was able to provide a revised regional spatial strategy that reflected local needs, infrastructure and objectives, which had a total target of 14,000 houses by 2026. That was a dramatic reduction on the previous regional spatial strategy target of 26,750, which was abandoned after the 2010 election and the defeat of the Labour Government.
	North Somerset’s core strategy was put before the planning inspector for public examination at the end of 2011. The inspector determined that the plan was sound and it was adopted in April 2012. However, the plan was subsequently challenged in the courts by the university of Bristol, which wants to build on green-belt land in my constituency. That is, in my view, an appalling testament to how much it values its own coffers and how little it values the local environment.
	In the High Court, the judge ruled that the Government inspector had failed to provide proper reasons in his report to support his conclusion that North Somerset’s 14,000 housing target was appropriate. Let me be clear—this was a failure on the part of the inspector, not of North Somerset. Had the inspector given adequate reasoning, North Somerset would now be required only to provide 14,000 houses.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Liam Fox: At this point in the story, we expected that there would be merely a re-examination process where the inspector would provide more detailed reasons for the support of North Somerset’s core strategy. Unfortunately, the judgment did not provide a remit for the re-examination process. As a consequence of the inspector’s error, North Somerset council had to submit the key parts of its plan, which had been remitted, for re-examination. Of course, by this time the context had changed significantly with the publication of the national planning policy framework in March 2012. The stated objective of Government was now to
	“boost significantly the supply of housing”
	and to ensure that the plans met the
	“full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area”.
	There was, however, one overwhelming problem in the context of North Somerset. Planning on housing numbers, and perceived need, had been done in conjunction with the local authorities in Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire. The other three authorities had their plans accepted in full, which meant that only North Somerset would have to have its numbers reconsidered in line with the 2012 NPPF assumptions. Bizarrely, we are now being asked to meet what is termed “Bristol’s unmet need”—something that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will understand from your own constituency interest—although the adopted Bristol city plan did not identify such a need.
	So what are the implications of all this? First, we have found ourselves with a new inspector who has told our elected council that even an increased number of 17,000 houses is too small, and that 20,000 would be a starting point for discussion. It is clear that the number is rising back towards the 26,000 target that was in the RSS specifically abolished by the Government. It seems that the bureaucrats always get their way, whatever local or nationally elected politicians want in the names of those who cast their ballots.
	Secondly, despite the fact that the error came from the planning inspector and not from the council, it is the council tax payers of North Somerset who have had to carry the burden in legal and other costs of well over £100,000 so far. Why on earth is this not being carried by the Planning Inspectorate, which is where the mistake occurred, and therefore by central Government funding?
	Thirdly, and most importantly, the problem caused by the original Government inspector’s error is being compounded, as the delay to the adoption of the core strategy is holding up progress on the detailed allocation of sites for new housing, and creating uncertainty over the council’s five-year land supply. This means that local villages around North Somerset are being subjected to developers attempting to grab large greenfield housing sites in the hope of being able to receive planning permission on appeal. Villages such as Yatton, Claverham and Backwell in my constituency, and Congresbury and Churchill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) are under attack from speculative development. That is clearly at odds with, and undermines, the Government’s objective of a plan-led system.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister can see from the maps I have supplied, North Somerset is not able to accommodate the scale of housing without encroaching into flood zones, green belt, sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assist us in defending those hugely sensitive areas. Even a housing target of almost 21,000 dwellings—50% more than had originally been determined to be necessary—will put enormous pressure on those lying outside the green belt. The infrastructure in villages such as Yatton, where the GP surgery and the local primary school are already full, is utterly unsuitable for that level of growth. More of the housing needs of Bristol need to be met in the city through redevelopment of brownfield sites, as is accepted by all the authorities in the sub-region. Indeed, North Somerset council has worked hard to secure the
	south Bristol link road, which will open up access to south Bristol and facilitate regeneration there—the type of regeneration we all need.
	So what do we want? We have already worked hard with Bristol city council, South Gloucestershire council and Bath and North East Somerset council on their longer-term strategic housing needs as we start to work together towards our strategic housing market assessment for the period to 2036. It seems utterly ludicrous to be asked, in effect, to work out a largely arbitrary housing allocation while preparing that plan. The most logical thing would be to put back in place the North Somerset core strategy originally agreed by the Government inspector while we assess, with our three partner authorities, the wider developmental needs of the region.
	The Government must give these commitments: they must underline the importance of the plan-led system, ensure that the Planning Inspectorate withstands the pressures from developers, and allow democratically elected councils to get their locally prepared plans in place.

Chris Skidmore: I thank my right hon. Friend for calling this extremely important debate. Large areas of the land he is talking about are green-belt land. Just as people in south Gloucestershire and Kingswood have happily protected the green belt, it must be up to local residents to decide whether they wish for building on the green belt; they should not have some kind of mission creep from Bristol. Does he agree that the plans set out by Labour in the Lyons review that would allow Bristol to expand into areas of north Somerset and south Gloucestershire are completely unacceptable, and that we must preserve and protect the green belt wherever possible?

Liam Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, as I am for that of my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Weston-super-Mare.
	I think we all speak with one voice when we say that the Government must tonight reiterate that green-belt protection will not be weakened and that the Bristol green belt will be retained in its entirety to defend the adjacent North Somerset countryside from development. Additionally, it must be made clear that greenfield development should come only as a last resort after all brownfield sites are exhausted. Finally, the infrastructure that is needed to support new development, including schools, GP surgeries and, where appropriate, roads must be provided by the developers; the cost must not fall disproportionately on local council tax payers.
	In North Somerset we are facing an expensive fiasco that is undemocratic and producing unsustainable outcomes. We have been very patient, and our very competent council has been extremely co-operative. Now we need answers.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing this debate and for his staunch
	advocacy of the views of his constituents and of North Somerset council. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has made similar representations.
	I regret that as a result of a legal challenge by Bristol university, elements of North Somerset council’s plan have had to be re-examined. I understand that this legal action successfully challenged the methodology for calculating existing housing need in North Somerset. The issue will have been thoroughly considered by North Somerset council and at the re-examination. The challenge was partially successful. The judge’s decision handed down on 14 February 2013 said that the inspector, in appraising the council’s housing requirement figure as 14,000, failed to give “adequate or intelligible reasons” for his conclusion that the figure made sufficient allowance for latent demand—that is, demand unrelated to the creation of new jobs.
	Although the judgment found shortcomings with the inspector’s approach, the housing calculation methodology, which ultimately led to the plan being thwarted, was proposed by North Somerset council. I welcome the fact that the re-examination of elements of the North Somerset local plan appears to be nearing its final stages, but I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, many of his constituents and others have concerns about the approach to housing need coming through the re-examination process.
	My right hon. Friend will appreciate that my ministerial role means that I cannot comment on the approach proposed by the North Somerset local plan, as it is currently at examination. However, I hope that some of the points I am going to make on the issues to which his specific concerns relate will none the less be useful in putting the matter in context and give some surety and confidence.
	As my right hon. Friend said, he has previously raised concerns directly with the Planning Inspectorate about its handling of the initial examination of the plan. Again, propriety prevents me from commenting on the conduct of independent inspectors, but in general terms their role is to ensure that plans are consistent with national policy and sound in other respects, and they cannot propose amendments to plans other than where asked by the relevant council.
	For many years we have failed as a nation to deliver sufficient housing to meet growing demand. That is why our policy rightly asks that authorities plan to meet objectively assessed development needs in a way that is consistent with national policy as a whole. Localism means a choice over how the needs of communities are best met, not whether they are met.
	I will return in a moment to the balance between enabling sustainable housing and conserving the natural and historic environment, as it is of central importance to planning nationally and in North Somerset.

Liam Fox: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the liability of the Planning Inspectorate and its role in this mess, I simply ask, for the sake of natural justice, how it can possibly be defensible that a mistake made not by the local authority, but by the Government inspector, can lead to the local authority and the local council taxpayers carrying the financial liability rather than the person and the funding source from where the mistake emanated?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend rightly makes the case on behalf of his local authority and I appreciate the points he makes. As I understand it, the core issue behind the judge’s decision related to the way in which the housing assessment was done. That is a matter for the local authority, but I will look into the specifics of what happened with the Planning Inspectorate. I will touch on that later, but perhaps I could also arrange to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the issue.
	Housing pressures are felt as equally, possibly more acutely, in the west of England as they are elsewhere in the country. National housing data indicate high demand for homes in North Somerset. I am also aware that affordability is more acute in North Somerset than in many other parts of the country. The evidence of North Somerset council itself suggests housing need of close to 26,000 homes, and the regional spatial strategy noted a figure of 26,750. Both figures are some 6,000 above those that the council is currently considering in its examination.

Liam Fox: I apologise, but that is simply not accurate. The figure of 26,000 was in the regional spatial strategy that we were elected to abolish, and we did abolish it. Those numbers were not drawn up in terms of local need in North Somerset. They were drawn up by bureaucracy, which seems to be getting its way by the back door. Neither the local authority nor central Government, who abolished the strategy, wanted those numbers, but they keep coming back. Why is that? Is democracy meaningless in this process?

Brandon Lewis: The figure in the regional spatial strategy was 26,750. The supporting evidence provided by North Somerset council indicates that its housing need may be as high as 25,950. Those are the figures it is working on. Obviously, this is a two-stage process and the second stage will focus on what the council can deliver within environmental constraints. I will return in a moment to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, but the council is looking at what it can deliver and I believe the figure it is currently considering is more like 20,000.
	Our policy asks that authorities plan for their areas on the basis of the appropriate evidence, including preparing a strategic housing market assessment to identify the scale and mix of housing likely to be needed over the plan period. That evidence should inform local plans to establish an aspirational but deliverable vision for the homes, jobs and infrastructure that are needed in areas. I stress that there are three parts to that.
	I know that my right hon. Friend and his constituents rightly place a high value on the environment in North Somerset, much of which is of exceptional quality. Let me make it absolutely clear that, as our planning guidance sets out and as we re-established in guidance just this summer, establishing development needs is only the first part of the plan-making process and should be unconstrained by policy restrictions.
	Once an authority has objectively assessed needs it is then important to look closely at constraints, whether they are related to the environment, landscape, or infrastructure provision, to determine what level of development it is appropriate to provide and where. Policy is absolutely clear that need does not automatically equal supply and there are strong protections in place to
	guard against inappropriate development. Let me stress some of the examples to give confidence to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those protections cover the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas vulnerable to flooding, even in the absence of a local plan. I know from the maps I have seen that those are all areas that are important in Somerset, and particularly in North Somerset.
	Our guidance, published in March 2014, sets out specifically that local plans should be
	“realistic about what can be achieved and when”,
	including in relation to the constraints that infrastructure might put on delivery. Similarly, guidance published in October of this year sets out the Government’s view that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the green belt and other harm to an extent that constitutes the “very special circumstances” required to grant permission for inappropriate development in the green belt. We made it clear in the guidance that the presence of constraints, such as the green belt, might limit the ability of an authority to meet its need. That is an entirely legitimate evidence base.
	Leaving aside the protections in national policy that always apply, we are all agreed on the importance of getting plans in place as they set the framework in which decisions are taken locally, and we have returned power in plan making to the local level wherever possible. As my right hon. Friend outlined, we revoked the unpopular regional strategies. We have enabled communities to introduce neighbourhood plans and have reformed local plan making so that inspectors may propose modifications to a plan only if invited to do so by the council.
	Of course, much of North Somerset’s local plan, including on protections for sensitive areas, has been in place since April 2012. I also want to be clear that, as set out in the national planning policy framework, emerging plans may start to carry weight in decision taking before they are formally adopted. I would take the opportunity to welcome recent progress in the wider west of England towards getting local plans in place. In particular, Bath and North East Somerset council adopted its plan on 10 July, and Mendip district council’s plan was found sound on 2 October. Alongside already adopted plans in other areas, that recent progress has put authorities and communities on the front foot in determining what is appropriate and where.
	In general, we have recently seen a substantial uplift in plan making. Now 80% of authorities have published a local plan compared with 32% back in 2010 and 60% of councils now have adopted local plans compared with just 17% when the Government came to power. Neighbourhood planning, introduced in the Localism Act 2011, also gives communities real power to bring forward their vision for the sustainable development of their areas and has been eagerly taken up by communities.
	More than 1,200 communities across the country, covering more than 5 million people, are now developing neighbourhood plans. I welcome the fact that there are four such groups of which we are aware at various stages of the process in North Somerset. I understand that Backwell parish council’s neighbourhood plan has passed examination, Long Ashton parish council’s work is subject to planning consultation and Winscombe and Sandford parish council has applied for its proposed
	area to be designated as a neighbourhood plan area. I would very much encourage those organisations to progress with their plan-making work.
	We recognise that legal challenge can in some cases unnecessarily delay planning. That is why we have introduced a raft of reforms to ensure efficiency in the legal handling of planning matters to complement our wider reforms improving the efficiency and speed of the system. The reforms include reducing the window in which claims for judicial review can be made against planning decisions, introducing a permission stage into the statutory review of plan making to weed out unmeritorious challenges at an early stage and establishing a specialist planning court within the High Court to speed up the determination of challenges to planning and infrastructure schemes.
	I encourage all Members to focus on the positive progress that has been made recently in respect of North Somerset’s local plan at examination and to look towards getting plans in place. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare have issues with how we got to where we are.

Liam Fox: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, as a member of the Government Whips Office, is unable to make his voice heard, so perhaps I may speak for both of us. We seem
	to be in a ridiculous position. The plan was put forward in 2011, agreed by the inspector and adopted in 2012, yet here we are at the end of 2014. If I am not mistaken, at the end of 2015, we will begin the planning period in which we will look at housing allocation through to 2036. It would be the height of absurdity if we were one of only four councils in the sub-region to be asked not only to look at our 2026 housing allocation, but to start the process all over again at the end of next year and look at the 2036 allocation. Surely this is a complete waste of public resources, as well as being utterly contrary to what my hon. Friend the Minister says is the Government’s aim, which is to encourage greater localism.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want to encourage localism. That is why we want the decisions to be made locally. I appreciate the frustration that the legal process has brought into this case. I know that he appreciates that I am limited in what I can say about any specific case, particularly while it is going through examination. However, I am happy to discuss this issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends in greater detail at an appropriate point and to write to them to outline the detail behind their queries, particularly in respect of the Planning Inspectorate and the legal situation, so that I cover any issues that I have been unable to address this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.